Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 15 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

New Deal

Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for communities. [107305]

Mr. Peter Snape: What steps the Government are taking to provide a new deal for local communities. [107313]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have now made offers of funding to 10 new deal for communities pathfinder partnerships to help them to deliver sustainable change for some of our poorest neighbourhoods. Seven more pathfinders will submit their proposals at the end of March. The success of the pathfinders has encouraged us to launch a second round of the programme in 22 further areas of England.

Ms King: I welcome that statement. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Tower Hamlets is one of those pathfinder areas. Will she be able to issue guidance to other Departments—in particular, the Benefits Agency—so that they can work more closely together in delivering the objectives of the new deal?

Ms Armstrong: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the close interest that she is taking in the new deal for communities in her constituency on the Ocean estate, a community that has had many difficulties. She has agreed to chair the partnership and is working very hard to pull all the different groups together, for which she is to be commended. I reassure her that the Government take the fact that it is a whole Government programme very seriously—it is not simply a programme from our

Department. I chair a ministerial committee on which all Departments have a representative to deal with the wide range of issues that the new deal areas cover. I assure her that the Department of Social Security is represented on that committee and we are working with it to seek new ways forward.

Mr. Snape: I thank the Minister for the £56 million recently received for the Greets Green area of the borough of Sandwell. Together with the funding for the new bus station and the town centre redevelopment in West Bromwich, it will go a long way to making up for nearly two decades of neglect in Sandwell. I am sure that I speak for you, too, Madam Speaker, when I say that making up for those years of urban decline and poverty in a town such as West Bromwich will require similar initiatives in future and we shall press the Minister along those lines again.

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right. We offered the Greets Green partnership £56 million to implement its long-term strategy over the next 10 years. It is a good strategy backed with a real determination to increase the number of jobs; to improve the skills and educational attainment of people living in the area; to reduce ill health; and to tackle crime. I hope that he continues to take a close interest and ensure that we do whatever possible to turn the area round and make people proud to live and bring up their families there.

Mr. Archie Norman: It is a particular pleasure to stand in front of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I look forward to maintaining the tradition of robust exchanges established by my illustrious predecessor. In the light of the last few days' revelations regarding my interests, I wish to make an apology. I apologise for the fact that my 20 years of real-world experience of planning, the environment and transport means that I have some practical grasp of the subject, which is not a problem that afflicts the Deputy Prime Minister.
As the new deal for communities is the Government's flagship programme to tackle deprivation in our cities, can the Minister tell the House whether the number of priority homeless cases has fallen under Labour; whether brownfield development in our cities has risen under Labour; what happened to inner-city crime last year; and how much hard cash has been delivered to the communities after nearly three years of Labour government?

Ms Armstrong: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. We, too, have real-world experience. Mine has been in working in areas of deprivation to build up local communities and work with them. Under the previous Government, that was an extremely difficult task. We are determined on all those issues to give the right sort of support to enable local communities to work effectively to turn their areas round. I wish to goodness that his Government had been slightly interested in that.

Mr. Norman: Now we know what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) meant when he said of the Government that minor functionaries give a wholly erroneous impression of what is going on. Are not the facts that under this Government, homelessness has risen by 3,500, brownfield development in our cities has fallen and crime is rising? Is it not also true that less money is


being spent under the new deal than was spent on urban regeneration by the previous Conservative Government? When I read on Saturday that there was a vacuum at the heart of new Labour, little did I expect to find it sitting opposite me on the Government Front Bench. Is not the truth that Labour has abandoned the north and the inner cities, and is that not why its Ministers are abandoning the Government?

Ms Armstrong: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will learn to work out what questions mean. These questions are about the new deal for communities. It is one of our regeneration programmes; there are many others. Perhaps he would like to add them up—then he might get the right figures. This Government, unlike his, will work for the whole country: north and south, east and west, rural and urban. If he really is worried about the north, why did he support the closure of steelworks, pits and shipyards that did far more to undermine the north than anything else that his Government did?

Mr. Hilary Benn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending an invitation to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) to visit my constituency to see the real-world deprivation that exists, largely as a consequence of his party's policies for 18 years? In that respect, will she review the eligibility criteria for the new deal for communities so that some parts of my constituency can put in bids for the new deal communities? They would like to benefit from the fortune that places such as West Bromwich are enjoying.

Ms Armstrong: I echo my hon. Friend's concern about the lack of knowledge of Opposition Front Benchers about some of our northern cities. Perhaps some day they will learn about them. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that Leeds is in fact able to bid for the new deal for communities in the next round.

National Air Traffic Services

Mr. James Clappison: If he will make a statement on the timetable for the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [107306]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Powers to create the public-private partnership for NATS are being sought in the Transport Bill. We intend to secure the benefits of the public-private partnership soon after those powers have been granted. This could be as early as 2001.

Mr. Clappison: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government's proposed golden share in the public-private partnership for NATS is legal under European law?

Mr. Prescott: Yes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If we were to go ahead without the acquiescence of the airline pilots, the British Air Line Pilots Association and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which represents the air traffic controllers, and unfortunately there was a

smash-up—let alone a mid-air collision—before any public inquiry could possibly report, who does the Deputy Prime Minister think would get the blame?

Mr. Prescott: Those who were guilty, and I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's assumptions.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, contrary to the assurances that he has given to his Back Benchers, the so-called public-private partnership envisages that NATS may be split up at some future point? Will he confirm that several different companies may provide air traffic services and that there will be several strategic partners? Will he confirm that the Government's shareholding could be reduced to 25 per cent, a point that has just been included in the Transport Bill? Will he confirm that the Government envisage circumstances in which NATS could be floated?
The Deputy Prime Minister ducked the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), so will he now confirm that he has received an opinion from the European Commission that suggests that the golden share in BAA is illegal? That implies that the golden share in NATS will also be illegal. Does he deny the existence of that opinion, and will he come clean on his negotiations with the Commission on this crucial matter? Will he confirm that the opinion suggests that the concepts of national security and national interest are not recognised by the European Commission?

Mr. Prescott: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand the situation, just as he does in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. The BAA case is not the same as that of NATS, and that is why I was so easily able to tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there was no conflict. The PPP, involving a strategic relationship with a private partner, is the best way to go. We have explained to the Standing Committee—and will continue to explain on Report—that it will mean long-term investment, that safety will be properly maintained and that the advances and growth that we require from NATS will occur.

Regional Development Agencies

Mr. Ian Pearson: What steps the Government are taking to promote economic development in the west midlands through regional development agencies. [107308]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Advantage West Midlands has produced a well-balanced regional strategy for economic development in the region. We await detailed action plans and look forward to working with the organisation as we begin to implement the strategy.

Mr. Pearson: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his long-standing commitment to the regions. All the signs suggest that Advantage West Midlands will make a big impact. Does he agree that one cannot download a fridge or a hi-fi, and that we therefore need to ensure that goods ordered through dotcom companies are manufactured in areas such as the west midlands? Does he agree that we


need the world-class infrastructure—road and rail links—that would allow those goods to be delivered quickly to the market? Will he ask his Department to examine conditions in the west midlands, where the transport infrastructure is clearly the worst around any major conurbation in Europe?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said. In particular, I believe that regional development agencies play an important part in developing prosperity in the regions. Such agencies were successful in Scotland and Wales, and we cannot see why the English regions should be denied them. They will play an important part in the transport strategies being developed with regional planning bodies and assemblies. I accept that transport could improve a lot in Birmingham, and we are giving that point considerable attention and taking advice from people in the regions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his appointment. He is my third shadow in less than three years, and I hope that he stays in post a little longer than his predecessors did, although his first appearance suggests that that might not be so. We shall wait and see. The job's previous occupant came out with a flurry of punches, but did not last long.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm the statement that I read in the—

Madam Speaker: Order. Question Time is for the Opposition.

Mr. Prescott: It is Question Time, Madam Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) asked about regional development agencies, and the Conservatives, having previously stated that they would abolish RDAs, have said today that they intend to keep them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells could let the House know what the Tory position is.

Mr. Peter Luff: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that I am no fan of regionalism. May I ask him carefully to consider the strategy produced by Advantage West Midlands? It is written in incomprehensible English, and is so bad that the Plain English Campaign criticised the agency for falsely claiming that it had the campaign's blessing. It is also a facile document that contains no substance. He should consider what that says about the quality of the agencies that he has, in my view mistakenly, put in place.

Mr. Prescott: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Wide consultations were held with people in the regions, including Tory councillors and the local authorities, all of whom played a major part in the development of the strategy. It has now been refined by the Government to determine priorities. Perhaps he will tell the House whether he still believes that the RDAs should continue to play a part in the regions.

Housing

Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of housing directly managed by local authorities. [107309]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government continue to attach the highest priority to housing and are committed to a policy that promotes decent and affordable housing for everyone. Local authority housing is an essential resource in achieving that objective.

Dr. Iddon: As Bolton is a band 1 housing authority, and in view of recent press rumours, will my hon. Friend say whether well-managed housing authorities will be able to continue to manage their local stock as they always have done? More important, will adequate funds be made available for the maintenance and management of that stock?

Mr. Mullin: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The recent press reports are inaccurate. It is up to each local authority, in consultation with its tenants—I emphasise that point—to decide on the best way to manage its housing stock. There are some advantages to voluntary transfers that we should expect local authorities to consider, but the process is not compulsory.
As for resources, the Government have already provided £5 billion extra for housing during this Parliament, so we have made quite a good start.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that the housing Green Paper has been delayed yet again? It was due to appear last autumn and then this spring. Will he confirm that it will now appear in July? After almost three years, is it not time that the Government had a proper housing strategy? As the Green Paper will not appear until after the comprehensive spending review, does not that mean that, yet again, the Treasury has scored a victory over his Department and that he and his colleagues have backed away from any meaningful reform of housing benefit?

Mr. Mullin: It is not true that the Green Paper has been delayed, because we gave no undertaking on when it would be published. However, it will be published shortly and will set out a clear statement of our vision for housing policy. As I pointed out, we have already committed an extra £5 billion for housing during this Parliament, so no one can say that we are neglecting the subject.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government continue to treat local councils differently from registered social landlords when it comes to raising commercial investment for improvements in the same housing occupied by the same people?

Mr. Mullin: We are anxious to encourage local authorities to consider the best ways to manage their housing stock and not to think that there is only one way of doing so. We want them seriously to examine the possibility of transfers. However, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), there is no compulsion and they must always consult their tenants.

London Underground

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on progress in achieving a public-private partnership for London Underground. [107311]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Excellent progress has been made, which will enable us to tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog on the tube that we inherited from the previous Tory Government, and to achieve our objective of a massive £8 billion of new investment to modernise London's underground network.
Bids for the two deep-tube public-private partnership contracts are due back by the end of next month. There has been strong interest in the sub-surface lines and property PPP competitions as well. Submissions to pre-qualify for those contracts are due back later this month.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Has he read the report by University college, London on the funding of the tube? Does he agree with its findings that the PPP will cost £1 billion more than a bond issue to raise the investment that is needed? Does he agree that the PPP will not allow for expansion of the tube network, that it will leave a shortfall between passenger fares and the infrastructure service charges of between £110 million and £175 million per year, and that that will have to be funded either by the Government or by the mayor and the Greater London Assembly?

Mr. Hill: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully, but he must not believe everything that he reads in academic reports. The academics have got it wrong again. If the PPP competition leaves a funding gap, that will be allowed for in the grant that we pay the mayor; we shall not leave London to pick up the bill. The PPP is all about obtaining best value. Public sector bonds would cost £4.5 billion more over 15 years.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The travelling public in London do not need to read academic reports to know that they have been short-changed by the Government. Their manifesto promises are no nearer to being realised now than they were almost three years ago. Is it not the case that daily the delays persist and that there is no sign of the investment that was promised at the last general election? In other words, Labour's promises were fraudulent.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that the Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds more in the tube system than was ever planned for by the Conservative Administration. Currently, £1.8 billion of new investment is going into the tube system overall. Let me also remind him that in the autumn, the Government announced a massive extra £50 million for London's bus system.

Housing

Kali Mountford: What assessment he has made of steps taken by local authorities to improve the quality of housing since 1997. [107312]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Good quality housing is a right not a privilege. We are taking a great many measures to help local authorities improve the quality of their housing. They include a number of actions to raise building standards, the increased involvement of tenants and a new regime of Government funding that will release a massive £5 billion increase in the resources available for housing, a factor that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) should take into account.

Kali Mountford: I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend has said about cowboy developers. He will know that my constituency, which is rural, has had significant problems with rogue developers. My constituents will be pleased to know that we are dealing with those problems. Will he also say how many council homes he expects to be improved as a result of his measures? He is right that council tenants deserve good quality homes.

Mr. Prescott: We faced a backlog of about £10 billion in housing, and the £5 billion that we have devoted to it over the life of this Parliament is a major step towards improving it. So far, we have improved 300,000 council homes and we plan for an additional 1.5 million council homes to be improved over the three years of the comprehensive spending review expenditure programme.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State taking a keen interest in the reform of housing benefits? Will he assure the House that local housing associations will not lose their income under the housing benefit reforms?

Mr. Prescott: These are very important issues. We are considering them and changes will be set out in the Green Paper. Housing benefit support is an important issue in regard to sustaining the existing agreements on housing. However, it also needs reform and we intend to cover that in the Green Paper.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to council housing. Does he agree that no area of public expenditure was cut as much under the previous Government as housing? Although the release of capital receipts has been wholly welcome, we need sustained year-on-year increases to undo the damage done by the vandalism in the 18 years of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Prescott: Yes, quite apart from leaving a backlog, the previous Administration cut their housing programme between 1992–93 and 1997–98 by half—from £1.5 billion to £751 million a year. That was their order of priorities. Another dividing line between the two parties is that we


choose to use the money from capital receipts to refurbish housing and to make the investment that should have been made rather than keeping it in the banks earning interest.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State assess himself the policy of Labour-run Southwark council, which proposes to demolish perfectly good council housing that was built in about 1980 near Tower bridge and replace it with a smaller amount of council housing and private housing so that it can raise money from land sales? Other estates are much worse and, on any basis, they should be demolished, but they have not been included in the scheme. Will he ensure that all policy has the agreement of the residents first and that it is consistent with keeping sustainable communities?

Mr. Prescott: I am not aware of exactly what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but social housing is an important matter. It is about mixed development and obtaining the agreement of tenants. I am sure that, in all cases, councils try to achieve that, but, in areas where there are differences of opinion, decisions have to be made. However, I am conscious of the importance of putting social housing at the top of the list.

Mr. Andrew Love: I welcome the £5 billion of investment that will improve 1.5 million homes over the next three years, which is in complete contrast to the failures of the 18 years of the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State ensure the critical involvement of tenants in the use of that investment, which will improve their estates and their lives, so that the compacts that will come into operation from April will ensure local democracy?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. That agreement will come in from 1 April, along with best value. We intend to improve the services provided by local authorities. It is important to do that as well as providing extra resources. That shows the Government's comprehensive approach to housing compared with that of the previous Administration. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was concerned not about housing but simply about building on greenfield land. He has experience of that because he has spent most of his time building on it.

Green Belt

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about the protection of established greenbelt land, and the acreage of it that has been approved for non-conforming use for development during the past 33 months. [107314]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government are entirely committed to the green belt as a method of restricting urban sprawl. The area of green belt has been increased under this Government by around 30,000 hectares. As I have already indicated in a written answer to the hon. Gentleman, information on inappropriate uses in the green belt is not held centrally.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The integrity of our greenbelt policy depends entirely on no part of it being built on.

Is it not spurious to allow development on greenbelt land and then say that the problem is overcome by adding more land to the green belt elsewhere—land that would not in any case be built on?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know from his background in planning that it is always important to keep policies under review and that there are circumstances in which policies that might appear to be unduly rigid may need some modification to achieve a more sustainable outcome. That should always be allowed for. The Government whom he supported consistently allowed development on greenfield and greenbelt land up until their last year in office when the then Secretary of State released 1,200 hectares of greenbelt land for development. That was a shameful record, and this Government are protecting the green belt.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Northowram hospital in my constituency, which is in the green belt and has beautiful lands, is due for closure. My hon. Friend will know that NHS Estates is essentially the landowner. Is there anything that he can do to prevent NHS Estates from going for the easy option of more housing in an already crowded village and make it consider alternatives for that beautiful site?

Mr. Raynsford: Inappropriate development in the green belt is a strong prima facie ground for refusal of planning permission. Certainly, any concerns that my hon. Friend has about an inappropriate proposal for development in her green belt should be referred to the local authority, which should be guided by PPG2, the relevant planning policy guidance note, which makes it clear that inappropriate development in such circumstances should be refused.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister recall justifying last week his approval of the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt in my constituency on the basis that the land is near the transport links of the A1 and the railway? Does he recognise that planning in this country works on precedent, and will he admit that the precedent that he has created gives the green light to ribbon development along motorways and railways, even when they go through greenbelt land? Will he remove that precedent by lifting his approval for the monstrous building of 10,000 houses on greenbelt land in my constituency?

Mr. Raynsford: No. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to know by now—he has heard it often enough from the Dispatch Box—the decision was properly made by the local authority in his area, which felt that it was better to concentrate development in one area with good access to transport links rather than to allow sprawl throughout the surrounding rural area. That was a decision properly reached by democratically elected local representatives who were facing up to their responsibilities rather than uttering cheap soundbites, of which he should be ashamed.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, under the previous Conservative Government, substantial development, particularly ribbon and dormitory development, took place outside the green belt, with a consequent impact on


transport and services? Does he accept that a sane and rational planning policy must take account of that, and that the Government must plan accordingly for the future?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the appalling record of the previous Government in permitting consistent and profligate use of greenfield land, including the nibbling away of the green belt, for inappropriate housing developments. We have adopted a different approach. We are seeking to ensure that the principles of sustainability are at the top of the agenda and that greenfield land is protected wherever possible, to ensure that the bulk of development is concentrated in our cities and on brownfield sites.

Mr. Damian Green: The House and the country will be alarmed to hear the Minister say, as he did a couple of minutes ago, that greenbelt land is under review. Will he give us a commitment today that if the Government adopt any part of the Crow report, which disgracefully advocates concreting over large parts of the south-east, no greenbelt land will be lost? Does he agree that the Government's failure to protect the green belt has led to comments such as the one in this month's Environment and Planning Review, which states that
considering Labour's pre-election pledge that the party would form the 'greenest ever Government'",
environmentalists have every right to feel let down? Is not that exactly right?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three counts. First, he misinterpreted my comments about the need to take a serious approach towards policy, and not to be utterly rigid when circumstances suggest that there are real gains to be made from an adjustment of policy. That occurs in certain cases, and any sensible, serious Government recognise that.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to suggest that the Government favour concreting over the countryside. As I pointed out in response to an earlier question, it was his party that allowed so much of rural England to be built on in a shameless and disgraceful way.
Thirdly, if we are speaking of the merits of individual hon. Members in terms of their environmental credentials, perhaps he will record that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the former shadow Secretary of State, recently received the award for being the least green of all Members. That is a pretty shameful comment on the Opposition Front-Bench team.

Regeneration

Mr. Clive Efford: What factors he will take into consideration in determining regional quotas for the allocation of future regeneration funds; and if he will make a statement. [107315]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The 2000 spending review that is currently under way will determine funding levels from 2001–02 to 2003–04 for all domestic regeneration programmes. Factors that will be taken into account in deciding regional spread will depend on the objectives

and priorities agreed for the programmes, together with our policies for economic development and renewal, social inclusion and urban renaissance.

Mr. Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware of the concern that some areas have taken precedence over others that show high levels of deprivation and social need. To clarify the position, will she undertake to publish the data used in drawing up the new indicators of social need, and the way in which the indicators have been weighted?

Ms Hughes: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been heavy criticism of the methodology used for the current index, which is why we propose to change it. We need a better indication of small pockets of deprivation and of disadvantage in rural as well as urban areas. However, we recognise that no index is perfect and that an index cannot provide a measure of absolute deprivation, so it is important to use the index sensitively and flexibly in deciding future regeneration resources. We shall look into the question that my hon. Friend raises in relation to the data.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Why did the Government allow the European Union to cut Britain's allocation of EU regeneration funds last July?

Ms Hughes: The English regions will receive some £4 billion of European structural funds from the Commission this year. That, together with the £5.5 billion that the Government have committed to regeneration in our English regions, demonstrates how serious we are about tackling social exclusion, wherever it occurs. It is the legacy of the previous Government that social exclusion and deprivation exist in every region of the country.

National Bus Company (Pensions)

Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the bus employees' superannuation trust scheme and the National Bus Company pension fund scheme. [107316]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I have made it clear to the National Bus Company pension trustees that the Government understand and share the concern of NBC pensioners about the time it is taking to distribute the settlement sum we paid last July. I was pleased to be able to say in a written answer yesterday to a question from my hon. Friend that I understand that the trustees intend to make initial payments to some 8,000 older pensioners in March and April, and that they are also urgently investigating the feasibility of making an initial payment to other pensioners as soon as possible.

Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and the Government for taking steps to right the injustice that the previous Tory Administration inflicted on NBC pensioners. The initial payment is welcome, but those pensioners are again at the mercy of lawyers, who despite having all the evidence, have failed to return to the High Court to get the final go-ahead for paying pensioners what


they are owed. Will my hon. Friend take up the matter with the trustees urgently and tell them to get their act together? Fifty thousand pensioners should not spend their twilight years feeling like characters in "Bleak House".

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend has done NBC pensioners a good service in highlighting possible delay in instituting further court proceedings. I shall pursue the matter with the chairman of the trustees when I meet her shortly.
My recollection of the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in "Bleak House" is that it was never resolved. That will not happen to the NBC pensioners. After the Tory years of plunder and procrastination, the Government have made possible the distribution of the £350 million pension fund surplus to those pensioners. We are determined that that distribution will take place as quickly as possible.

Regional Assemblies

Mr. A. J. Beith: When he will set a date for a referendum on the setting up of a regional assembly for the north-east of England. [107318]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government are committed to moving to directly elected regional government in England, demonstrated in a referendum. The north-east is strengthening its regional presence through the work of ONE NorthEast, the north-east regional assembly, and other regional stakeholders.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister recognise the need for those bodies to have some democratic accountability, and the desire of people in the north-east to have a strong regional voice, which can press for the sort of funding that Scotland receives for its public services? Am I to conclude from the fact that she, not the Deputy Prime Minister, is answering the question, that the right hon. Gentleman is believed to have gone too far over the top in insisting that the Prime Minister has not gone off the idea and that we will have a referendum on a Parliament for the north-east in a reasonable period of time?

Ms Armstrong: There is no division between us. We, as a Government, are determined to move forward with regional policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we established the Northern Development Company and our own regional assembly in the north-east more than 10 years ago. We did that in the face of opposition by the previous Tory Government. It would be interesting to know what the Tories would do in the north-east, where the institutions that I mentioned were developed by people in the region. Conservative Members continue to say that they will get rid of them. Will they really do that?

Mr. Jim Cousins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's repetition of the pledge that we are moving towards democratic government in the north-east and, hopefully, other regions. People like me have campaigned passionately for that for more than 20 years because we want to tackle the long-term

economic, health and education inequalities of our region. We do not do it because we want to break Britain up, but because we want to bring it closer together.

Ms Armstrong: I know that. I have campaigned alongside my hon. Friend for many years for a decent regional policy. The Government are committed to that. We shall continue to develop our policy because we want the regions of this country to have the sustainable growth that will enable the whole country to develop steadier and more sustainable growth. That will mean that all people, wherever they live, will get the opportunities that they deserve.

Mr. David Prior: Will the Minister explain the impact of that wholly unnecessary layer of government on traditional and existing local government?

Ms Armstrong: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not recognised or realised that local government very much supports regional development and the Local Government Association is holding hearings on precisely that issue. Indeed, 105 Tory councillors are involved in regional assemblies and many of them are also involved in regional development agencies. They support it; their party does not.

Town Centres

Mr. Christopher Leslie: If he will make a statement on Government support for the location of new retail outlets in existing town centres. [107319]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Our policy is set out in planning policy guidance note 6, entitled, "Town Centres and Retail Developments". We have strengthened the guidance by requiring applicants for out-of-town centres to demonstrate that there is a need for the store and by making it clear that extensions to existing out-of-town developments are subject to a sequential test.

Mr. Leslie: I welcome the strong stance taken by the Government. Is my hon. Friend aware that retail shopkeepers in the town of Bingley in my constituency were threatened by an out-of-town shopping proposal, which the local council was able to stand firm against and reject thanks to the strong guidance given by the Government? Will he send a strong message to those who have profited from the plundering of town centres, including certain Conservative Members, that the Government will stand firm in fighting for the viability of our town centres?

Mr. Raynsford: I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's comments and simply add that there was an explosion of out-of-town shopping under the Conservatives. No fewer than 7.7 million sq m of out-of-town shopping centres and retail parks were built between 1979 and 1997. That involved serious damage to many existing town centres. We are determined to concentrate development in existing centres and delighted that the bulk of retailers—including,


I believe, Asda Wal-Mart—have recognised that their future developments should be located primarily in town centres.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If that is indeed Government policy, will the Minister undertake to talk to his colleagues in the Treasury with responsibility for the district valuers office and see whether the uniform business rate can be adjusted so that out-of-town supermarkets have a more sensible rate and in-town shops can compete with them?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about the need to achieve a level playing field wherever possible. My evidence to the Select Committee stressed the Government's objective of ensuring that there is—as far as possible—a level playing field, not perverse incentives that make it easier to develop in unsustainable locations. I cannot give the specific commitment that he seeks because he appears to want an increased rate in certain areas. I am not sure that that would be an appropriate solution, but I can assure him of the Government's commitment to the principle of achieving a more level playing field.

Environmental Services

Gillian Merron: What steps he is taking to encourage initiatives by local authorities to improve the quality of their environmental services. [107320]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Local Government Act 1999 imposes a duty of best value on local authorities. It requires them to secure continuous improvement in the quality and effectiveness of their services and provides them with a major opportunity to drive up standards, including those for environmental services.

Gillian Merron: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lincoln city council on its excellent initiative in establishing a graffiti hotline, which actions the removal of offensive and racist graffiti within 24 hours? What plans has he for ensuring that that best practice and determined action is mirrored across the country?

Mr. Meacher: I am aware of the good example that Lincoln has set by establishing a 24-hour telephone anti-graffiti service and a policy of removing offensive graffiti—particularly racist graffiti—within 24 hours, which my hon. Friend described. That is another good example of a Labour-controlled council improving local environment services and driving up standards.
We are keen to disseminate best practice. This is a good example of precisely how it can be done better. The Government regard graffiti vandalism very seriously. There are significant penalties, particularly where the damage is severe, in excess of £2,000, with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years. We want to see that enforced.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If the Minister is serious about giving local authorities a bigger role in

improving their local environment, will he make sure that they have more power and more say over the allocation of new housing within their boroughs?

Mr. Meacher: We are concerned about ensuring that local authorities have greater control over all their services. That is why this Government have made a major change compared with the previous Government, in releasing local authorities from the excessive and unreasonable bureaucratic controls that they had under that Government. That is why we have made a change, in particular, from compulsory competitive tendering to best value, which enables local people to have much greater control over the quality and cost of services, including housing services.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Has any environmental services department yet come forward with a solution to the problem of discarded chewing gum that we experience everywhere? It really needs to be solved.

Mr. Meacher: I am certainly not stuck up on these kinds of problems.
Depositing chewing gum on pavements, or on any surfaces, is a particularly disgusting habit. We intend in both the urban and rural White Papers to come forward with proposals to deal with litter as well as graffiti. I am in touch with one of the major manufacturers of chewing gum to see whether it can find a way of producing biodegradable chewing gum.

Traffic Congestion

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the levels of traffic congestion in Great Britain (a) today, (b) a year ago and (c) two years ago. [107321]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): It will be of interest for the House to learn that no Government of any political hue have ever published a measure of congestion. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, therefore, is that no estimates of congestion currently available would allow an assessment to be made of changes year on year. However, since the general election, this Government have begun work on measures of congestion, which could be used to monitor these changes in the future. Although we may not yet be able to measure congestion, we clearly know that it exists. Our report, "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published last month, showed that, with widespread support from local authorities, businesses and the general public for the measures in our integrated transport White Paper and Transport Bill, currently before the House, we can reduce congestion over the next decade.

Mr. O'Brien: With the glaring evidence before you, Madam Speaker, and indeed all hon. Members, of the most appalling traffic congestion daily in Parliament square, it is no comfort to hear from the Minister's answer that the present Government accept that they have failed to deliver yet another pre-election pledge, to
reduce and then reverse traffic growth".


Will the Minister confirm that the Government's failure is because they have slashed the roads programme while cutting spending on public transport? Does he now realise that most people in this country use their car out of necessity? Is not the Government's failure yet another example of the great Labour lie?

Mr. Hill: At least the hon. Gentleman had one good point, about traffic congestion in Parliament square. The House may be interested to learn that we have been informed that the work in Parliament square is scheduled to take two weeks, but I can assure the House that the Government are bearing down heavily on the companies undertaking that work.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence of a reduction in traffic growth. That is simply not true. The evidence is that we are beginning to turn the corner on traffic growth. Last year in London, for example, the number of people entering the central area by car in the morning peak decreased by 2 per cent. Moreover, for the country as a whole, provisional traffic statistics suggest that since 1997 the volume of traffic has grown by about half the rate it did during the 18 years of Tory rule. That is a remarkable achievement in a period of strong economic growth. The trends are moving in the right direction, and will be reinforced by the Government's policies for reducing congestion and increasing public transport use.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Minister aware that the busiest road junction in Europe—the junction between the M4 and the M25—is on the edge of my constituency? Is he aware of the application for the building of a so-called rail freight transport station there, and is he aware that 80 per cent. of movements will be by road? When the proposal is submitted to him, will he consider it carefully with a view to saying no, in the light of the impact that such a development would have on the M3, the M4, the M25 and the M40, which are already congested?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is, as ever, an outstanding advocate for her constituency, but I am afraid that quasi-judiciality prevents me from making any comment about that specific proposal.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that one way of reducing traffic congestion would be to take robust action in respect of tour buses? Especially at the height of winter, such buses travel around historic cities such as Oxford, Chester, York and, indeed, Bath, clogging the roads, when almost or completely empty. The only purpose of the drivers is to make themselves eligible for the fuel duty rebate. Will the Minister conduct a review of the rebate as it applies to such vehicles?

Mr. Hill: I am tempted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Liberal battle bus, empty as usual; but I appreciate his concern. As he will know, the traffic commissioners have certain powers in this respect, which are strengthened by the current transport legislation. Moreover, the fuel duty rebate is paid only on the basis of compliance with a number of conditions.

The Department carries out checks from time to time to ensure that those conditions are met, and, in fact, may well be doing so at around this time.
The Commission for Integrated Transport is currently conducting an inquiry into bus subsidies, and we await with interest the report that it will produce later in the year.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I am sure that the Minister realises that far more people are stuck up in traffic each day than are stuck up in chewing gum. Will he consider, in particular, the number of vehicles carrying goods in transit, often travelling through cities two or three times before the goods end up back in the shops? Will he and his ministerial colleagues give thought to specific measures that might encourage a reduction in food miles? Perhaps local partnerships could be established between urban consumption centres and rural producers, both to shorten food miles and to strengthen and shorten lines of food accountability.

Mr. Hill: I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is doing a great deal of work on precisely those issues. I shall ensure that his observations form part of its considerations.

Brownfield Sites

Mr. Crispin Blunt: What assessment he has made of the potential for development on brownfield sites in the south-east. [107322]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government are fully committed to the re-use of land for development in preference to greenfield sites, and have set a national target that 60 per cent. of additional housing should be built on previously developed land. Over 50 per cent. of dwellings are already built on recycled land in the south-east. Our national land use database indicates that over 10,000 hectares of land are available for recycling in the region.

Mr. Blunt: Is not the harsh truth that in Surrey, for example, there simply are not enough brownfield sites to meet the Government's 60 per cent. target, if they accept the Serplan figures or, worst of all, the Crow report figures for the number of houses to be built in the south-east? Unless the Government attack the factors underlying the household growth projection figures and change those figures, the Minister's policy can end only in the concreting over of the countryside.

Mr. Raynsford: Concreting over the countryside is a phenomenon that the hon. Gentleman will be well familiar with because it took place repeatedly throughout the 18 years of Conservative Government, when there was a laissez-faire approach to private developers building houses throughout that area. It is sad and sobering that, until the Government were elected, there was no record of how much brownfield land was available. Until our national land use database was published, no one knew the potential for achieving what the Government are determined to achieve: a focus on development on brownfield sites within not just the south-east, but the whole region.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the House will be aware, all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill are shortly to be considered by the House. To paraphrase the Bill, it is to bring direct rule back to Northern Ireland, the reason being that there is apparently no decommissioning of illegally held arms or explosives by the relevant paramilitary groups. To help the House to decide whether there has been any decommissioning, surely it is essential that General de Chastelain's report be published. Have you had any indication from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it is to be published, or do you believe that, even at this last moment, it will be placed in the Vote Office for the benefit of Members?

Madam Speaker: I have had no indication about the availability of the report. I am aware that, only yesterday, one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), raised the issue with the Leader of the House in the hope that the report might be available. It is a Government report. I am afraid that I have no responsibility for it. I am not certain when it will be made available.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point of order with you concerning the recent outbreak of violence against United Nations forces in Mitrovica in Kosovo. Since the last statement, more than 200,000 members of ethnic minorities have been expelled from Kosovo and hundreds killed. I wonder whether there is anything that you could do, or whether it is in your power to get the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on what is a deteriorating position.

Madam Speaker: I have no power to instruct the Secretary of State or any Minister to come to the House to make a statement. I understand the hon. Lady's concern and, of course, I recall very well the point of order that was raised with me yesterday. I indicate to the Government Front-Bench team the interest that there is in the matter, in the hope that it will be reported to the appropriate quarter.

Petrol Tax (Promulgation)

Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose an obligation on petrol retailers to display prominently at the point of sale of petrol a notice showing the percentage and amount of the cost of a litre of petrol which go to the Exchequer by way of tax and duty.
The Bill will make it a statutory obligation that, at petrol pumps, the amount of tax per litre is clearly displayed. Rightly, over the years, Parliament has sought to ensure that, as far as possible, consumers have available the greatest possible information, on the basis of which they can make sensible judgments. Clearly, critical information for consumers is the true price of goods.
That is why, for example, at petrol stations, for a long time, there has been a clear indicator on petrol pumps of the equivalent cost of petrol in gallons and litres, so that consumers do not become confused. However, the Government are increasingly raising revenue by stealth taxes. It must be right that consumers, as both purchasers and taxpayers, have a full understanding of what they are actually paying to the Treasury and how much of what they are spending is going in tax. It is no good the Government trumpeting that they are not increasing the standard rate of income tax if they are simply increasing by stealth indirect taxes, often to the disproportionate cost of poorer members of the community.
Recent research by the AA showed that huge numbers of motorists are still unaware of how much of the price of a litre of petrol goes to the Government. Even after an intensive campaign last year, the AA estimated that only about one motorist in three is aware of that. It is plausible that those figures have tailed off further since and that, even if they have not, the vast majority of drivers are still completely in the dark. The Bill will bring to the attention of all motorists the substantial proportion of the cost of a litre of petrol that goes straight to the Treasury and Government.
The latest figures from the European Union weekly oil bulletin, compiled from petrol prices and tax rates in every member state, show that the UK petrol pump price is the highest in Europe. In most comparisons, it is considerably higher.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, in this country, one pays at the pumps on average 73p for a litre of petrol. A litre would cost 64p in France, and only 60p in Germany. In Greece, a litre would be almost half our cost. In Europe generally, on average, it would be 14p per litre less than it is here.
The considerable price difference is not the fault of petrol distributors. Indeed, as we are one of the few European countries whose pre-tax price is less than the European Union average, the absurd price difference is even more perplexing. The fact is that our pre-tax petrol price is the second lowest in Europe but, despite that, the petrol price paid by United Kingdom motorists is twice that paid by motorists in Greece, for example.
As our pre-tax price is one of the lowest, it seems reasonable to expect the pump price here to be lower. That substantial difference is the fault not of retailers but of the Government, who force prices sky high with 80 per cent. taxation. A staggering £8 of every £10 spent on petrol goes in tax. Consequently, Britain's petrol tax rate is


almost 10 per cent. higher than that of all our European Union neighbours. Another consequence is that we end up with crazy situations in which Britain's retailers might pay one quarter less for petrol in Holland, yet our Exchequer takes a disproportionate 10 per cent. more in tax. The only reason for the difference is the need to fill the Exchequer's coffers and the Chancellor's election war chest.
As the first step towards bringing us into line with Europe, it would be fair to make the public fully aware of the amount of tax being paid. My Bill would bring to the attention of all motorists just how high a proportion of the cost of petrol is paid in tax. It would also bring to motorists' attention the fact that petrol tax now costs them more than £15 billion annually, and that—because of increases imposed since 1997, in the past three Budgets—petrol tax costs each motorist a further £150 per year.
If retailers have to raise prices to try to make a profit, the consequence for motorists is serious. Last month, the cost of unleaded petrol increased by more than 7p a litre, which is an additional burden created soley by the Government and forced directly on the motorist. It is clear that the vast majority of motorists are completely unaware—although they need to be made aware—that the burden is a burden simply because of the Government.
It is obvious, too, that the burden hurts most those who are least well-off and those who live in rural areas. The Government's tax on petrol is a double blow to those who live in the countryside. Those people have to contend not only with excessively high petrol costs but with a cost that will increase even further, when petrol is distributed to rural areas. Clearly, small rural filling stations have to pay a significant premium because of the distribution cost of petrol. The premium adversely affects the price of rural forecourts' petrol, with some prices as much as 10 per cent. higher. That only makes life more expensive for the rural driver.
As an extensive and detailed paper by the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently showed, one small increase in petrol tax can have a hugely distorted effect on a household's cost of living. That effect can only increase for those living in rural areas. Consequently, the situation can be very difficult if one is a less affluent rural driver.
Moreover, rural motorists tend to use their cars the most, simply because they have to use their cars the most. According to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 85 per cent. of those who live in the countryside own a car, compared with the national average of 69 per cent. The Department also estimates that annual car mileage in the countryside is one third more than it is in urban areas. The reason for that difference is that, invariably, in the countryside, there is no viable alternative to the car.
Those who live in rural areas simply cannot rely on a bus service that is "Not Saturdays" or "Fridays and Saturdays Only". In some parts of my constituency, on a Friday, if one wants to catch a bus from a village to Banbury, one will have to do so before 5.30 pm or wait until Monday. It is a familiar situation that, as a recent survey by the Rural Development Commission revealed, must be reflected in many rural constituencies. The survey confirmed just how insufficient public transport is in the countryside, and discovered that, in the past decade, the number of parishes with absolutely no bus service had steadily increased, to almost one quarter of all villages.
The survey also found that, even in rural areas that did have some sort of service, another quarter of villages were without a daily service. A necessary conclusion must be that, at the very least, half of Britain's rural communities have to live without remotely sufficient public transport. The commission found an even poorer situation in rail services in rural areas. The truly astonishing fact is that, for 97 per cent. of those areas, there is no rail service at all.
Public transport provision is inadequate or non-existent for many people who live in the countryside. That is why so many of them have to use a car. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions estimates that the number of journeys involving public transport is a quarter lower in the countryside than elsewhere. That should be blamed not on local councils, but on the Government, who have made less than 5 per cent. of the revenue generated from petrol tax available for public transport.
A bad situation is made even worse by Government policies, including the likely relaxation of planning policy guidance notes, which will create more out-of-town shopping centres away from residential areas and force drivers to use cars more. Even if public transport services were more reliable, those centres would be inaccessible. The south-east regional planning guidance looks likely to mean more housing and more travelling, mostly by car.
It is not surprising that rural motorists are hurt most by the Government's petrol tax. The Bill would make it clear why the tax was hurting by making it clear how much tax motorists were paying. That is only fair to motorists as consumers and taxpayers. Neither is it surprising that the amount of petrol consumed has risen. The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that 5 per cent. more petrol is being consumed since the general election. The increases in petrol tax, generating around £2 billion in revenue for every increase above inflation, have clearly not been introduced because of a loss in revenue from lower sales. That is all the more galling for motorists who have been unfairly penalised.
The Chancellor has announced plans in the pre-Budget report, after considerable pressure from the Conservatives, to abandon the fuel tax escalator. Even if he keeps that pledge, it will only put a stop to the automatic rise in petrol tax and will not remove the rises that the Government have already put in place. Neither will it alter the purpose of the Bill. The first and fairest step for all consumers must surely be a full public understanding of how much the Government are syphoning off in tax on petrol.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. David Curry, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Michael Mates, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Nicholas Soames.

PETROL TAX (PROMULGATION)

Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to impose an obligation on petrol retailers to display prominently at the point of sale of petrol a notice showing the percentage and amount of the cost of a litre of petrol which go to the Exchequer by way of tax and duty: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 62].

Northern Ireland Bill (Programme)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill:—

Timing of proceedings

1.—(1) Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at today's sitting.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(3) Proceedings in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(4) Remaining proceedings on the Bill shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill,
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

Questions to be put

3.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion for a new Clause or Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put by the Chairman or Speaker under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

Lords Amendments

4.—(1) Any Lords amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.

5.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of concluding in accordance with paragraph 4 any proceedings on any message received from the Lords relating to the Bill.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent Stages

6.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

8.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Miscellaneous

9.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.

(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.

10.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

(2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any Amendment.

11. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

12.—(1) The Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall be put forthwith.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this Order applies.

(3) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, 4 or 6, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

13. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

I am grateful for the co-operation of the Opposition and other parties in taking the Bill through its Commons stages today. The whole House will appreciate the reasons for the urgency with which the Government are acting. We are dealing with a serious situation. Over the next two days or so, critical decisions will need to be taken about the immediate future of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Without a substantive change in the situation, there may in a very short time be insufficient cross-community basis and support to sustain the institutions of devolved government in Northern Ireland, which is why we are bringing forward the Bill.

Mr. Michael Howard: Would not the House have an even greater appreciation of the urgency of the legislation if it had sight of the de Chastelain report? Why will not the Secretary of State make it available to the House?

Mr. Mandelson: As I explained to the House in my statement last Thursday, when I described the de Chastelain report in full terms, it is the property not simply of the British Government, but of both the Irish and British Governments. It is reasonable for me to repeat the assurance that I have already given the House that, in the event of a further report being issued by General de Chastelain and his colleagues, I shall ensure that the original report is published alongside it so that right hon. and hon. Members may draw any comparison that they wish.

Mr. Howard: If the Secretary of State is in a position to ensure that the de Chastelain report is published in the circumstances that he just identified, why on earth is he not in a position to ensure that report is made available to the House now?

Mr. Mandelson: For this reason: the report's usefulness to the House—bearing in mind that it is a report to the two Governments, not simply the British Government—would arise in the event of a further report being issued by General de Chastelain's decommissioning

body. In those circumstances, I would judge that it would be appropriate and necessary to publish both the original and further report, so that the House could see them.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I think that I have dealt with the issue to most people's satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly to my own satisfaction. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will excuse me, I will complete my remarks about the programme motion.
In these circumstances, the Government must act, and possibly act very quickly if conditions demand. Through the Bill, we are seeking to take power to suspend the operation of the Executive and all the associated institutions that were set up following the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. It is essential that the Government have that power and should be in a position to exercise it, if necessary, by the end of this week.
That provides the essential reason for the urgency, should circumstances demand that I act quickly—in two or three days. I hope that hon. Members will use the time that we have available today for a full and thorough debate of the important issues at stake. The terms of the programme motion—which have been agreed through the usual channels—are such that there is generous time available at each stage of our proceedings for full and thorough consideration of every aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that, for some weeks, as decommissioning has increasingly seemed unlikely, my colleagues and I have called for the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly. We believe that it is essential that that happens by the end of this week. To suspend, there has to be legislation that brings back direct rule. In those circumstances, we very much support the Secretary of State's business motion.
Without wishing to trespass unduly on your time, Madam Speaker, and reiterating my point of order, I emphasise the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). It is difficult for the House properly to consider the merits of decommissioning and whether it is right—as I believe—to suspend the Executive unless we know what is said in the general's report. If not an abuse of the House, it is certainly riding roughshod over the House for that report not to be available.
If the Secretary of State were to say that there are security-sensitive matters in the report, it would be wrong to insist that the whole report be published. If he were to say that, I would fall back on the argument that at least the report's conclusions should be published. We want them published now, while the House is debating these matters. When we pass the timetable motion, the Bill will go through all its stages during the course of today. On the assumption that it is not amended in the other place, there will be no other chance for us to deliberate on these matters. We have to do so without all the facts being available to us, and that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Some of us are concerned that the Government are not prepared to


publish the de Chastelain report because it is so damning of terrorist organisations. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. MacKay: No, I would not, as it is unhelpful to speculate. However, if the Secretary of State does not publish the report, inevitably there will be speculation in a variety of quarters, which could be damaging. It is precisely for that reason that I am urging him to publish the report in full if he feels able, but, if it is security-sensitive, at least its conclusions. We can then reach our own conclusions, as it is important for the House to do. Even at this late stage, I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to place in the Vote Office this report or its conclusions so that we can deliberate properly.

Mr. Paul Tyler: As the Secretary of State will be aware, this is the first programme motion agreed this Session. I regret that it takes an emergency of this sort for us to be able to handle our business in this sensible way, and that we do not have more such motions.
We support the motion, but a serious point, to which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has just referred, must be addressed. Clearly, it is not just a question of dealing with an emergency in a vacuum. We are dealing with an emergency in a complicated context. The more the House can be informed about that context, the better our deliberations on the measure will be. I hope that, in the discussions that will continue and in terms of any further back-up information that may be available, the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
It is important that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction, and we must think carefully about what will happen next. I am sure that that is uppermost in the Secretary of State's mind. However, it is important for the whole House to be as fully informed as possible in taking decisions. We must have a measured timing of our debate, and it must be as fully informed as possible.
We hope that the debate will be as well balanced as it can be. We support the motion, and hope that it will go through without dissent.

Mr. Eric Forth: Since the Secretary of State was so coy about giving way and giving us the full story behind this matter, it might help the House enormously, in deciding whether we want to approve this timetable motion, if he would tell us more about the role of the Irish Government. As far as I know, this is the first time that reference has been made to the role of the Irish Government at this stage in these proceedings. The Secretary of State has rather teasingly said that the de Chastelain report belongs jointly to Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Ireland.
What is not clear is whether the Secretary of State is bursting to share the report with the House, but has been prevented from doing so by the Irish Government. We do not know whether he has asked the Irish Government if they would agree to the publication of the report. We do not know what response the Irish Government might have given him. It is not unreasonable for us to get some more information from the Secretary of State, either to let

himself off the hook—so that we would not dream of accusing him of withholding information from the House—or to establish the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government in the crucial matter of what most of us regard as vital information not being shared with the House.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: During the Secretary of State's statement last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) asked him whether the Irish Government supported the proposed actions of the British Government. The answer was somewhat opaque. In reinforcing the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is making, we need to be clear on the attitude of the Irish Government to not only the publication of the de Chastelain report but the process on which we are embarking this afternoon.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the reasons why the House needs to know this in the context of a timetable motion—which is urging us to allow this matter to be dealt with expeditiously—must be the availability of required information to the House at this point in our proceedings. Our decision will have to be whether we feel that we can agree to this expedited procedure without having available vital information. All I am asking the Secretary of State is to tell us more about why he feels unable to bring the contents of the report forward—or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, even the summary of the report. We are not asking for all sorts of confidential security information—we simply believe that, to make a judgment about whether we agree to the timetable and then the substance of the Bill, we must have available all relevant information. The de Chastelain report is a key part of that.
I hope that the Secretary of State will feel able, when he replies to this brief debate on the timetable motion, to tell us much more than he has hitherto. Simply saying in his charming way, "Trust me, it will all be all right and there might be another report in the future," is not good enough.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Minister made his statement last week, I asked him whether we would have the report before this debate, because this debate would not be taking place if the general's report had not been issued. It seems to me unfair and unjust that some people in a part of Ireland who are not under the United Kingdom can have knowledge of the report, while the Parliament of the United Kingdom is having a debate in which none of us, except the Government, are privy to what is in it. That is outrageous. I wonder how the people of Scotland, Wales or England would like that to happen to them. It is behaviour that could not be tolerated in a proper democracy.
The people of Northern Ireland should know why we are in the House today and why this debate is taking place. We do not know the real reason, because the real reason is the report. As was said earlier, it is important to know the attitude of the southern Government to the issue. Do they not want the people of Northern Ireland to know what is in the report? Is it being withheld because the Minister is not free to give the information to the House?


If, as was suggested earlier, the report contains sensitive security matters, we do not need to have them, but we do need the end of the report, including the main reasons for certain findings. The people of Northern Ireland deserve to have those made known so that we can debate the issue in the House today.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Even more curious is the fact that the Secretary of State invokes the fact that the report has gone to two Governments and then tells us that, should there be another report, he will ensure that it is made available to the House. There is a profound contradiction somewhere in that. In truth, we are asked to accept what would be—in ordinary circumstances—a draconian guillotine motion, which includes reducing to one hour the consideration of Lords amendments, should there be any. That would roll up the entire production into a debate that could reduce consideration to three hours.
The Secretary of State should bring the de Chastelain report to the House. Some hon. Members have speculated about what the report might contain, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that he did not wish to do so. However, the Secretary of State is creating the circumstances in which the wildest speculations accrue around his proposition. To carry this motion with the confidence of the House, the Secretary of State should ensure that the de Chastelain report is made available to the House. If he cannot, he should tell us whether it is because the Irish Government have expressed a wish that it should not be revealed.
It is not only a question of the people of Ulster being informed, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has just said, because it is also a question of the House of Commons being informed. Today, we will undo that which we have made only recently, so, at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to place the de Chastelain report in the Library.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have to acquaint the House that I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
This is a Bill that I had hoped very much not to have to introduce. I still hope that it will prove unnecessary to implement it, but that depends on changes and developments which have not yet taken place but which would need to take place speedily, and certainly over the next two or three days, to prove it unnecessary.
Last Thursday I made a statement to the House in response to the latest report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I think that I said enough about that report last Thursday for the entire House to understand that what was significant about de Chastelain's report was more what it did not say had happened than what it was able to describe had happened since the previous occasion in December when General de Chastelain had reported.
In summary, General de Chastelain and his colleagues reported that, as far as the IRA is concerned, to date they had received no information from the IRA as to when decommissioning will start.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I should like to make some progress. I said then that if further information came to light which rendered my statement out of date, I would of course inform the House. Intensive discussions continue, and there remains the possibility of a further report by General de Chastelain and his colleagues on the international body.

Mr. Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: In a moment. At present, I have no further substantive progress to report. It is therefore necessary to put this legislation in place, so that if it remains necessary because cross-community confidence has been undermined, we can create a pause in the operation of Northern Ireland's devolved political institutions from the end of this week.

Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In dealing with the report, will he address a point that has been put from the Opposition Benches? Have the Irish Government expressed the opinion that the report should not be made public or available to the House?

Mr. Mandelson: Both Governments have agreed that for the time being, no further useful purpose is served by


publishing the report because it does not contain additional information, other than that which I have already given the House, that would inform the House. We have, however, said that in the event of a further report being delivered to the two Governments by General de Chastelain, we shall publish both so that they can be seen alongside each other.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Mandelson: No, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. There is no doubt in my mind that the necessary cross-community consensus which has existed, which supported the establishment of the Executive and of the institutions in Northern Ireland and north and south across the island of Ireland, and which is essential in creating those institutions and sustaining their existence, has been severely dented by the absence of credible progress on decommissioning—indeed, the absence of an unequivocal commitment to decommission, or a specific time frame in which decommissioning will occur.

Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable article in today's edition of The Irish Times by my hon, Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in which he pleads with the IRA to start decommissioning and explains why that is so essential? Can my right hon. Friend give the House a guarantee that, whatever the circumstances, he will continue to do his utmost to work closely with the Irish Government on decommissioning and other aspects of the Good Friday agreement?

Mr. Mandelson: I have read the article by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in The Irish Times today, and I heard his statements at the end of last week. I shall refer to what he has said later in my speech, but, for now, suffice it to say that I have absolutely no doubt that his remarks speak for the overwhelming mass of nationalist opinion in both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Mandelson: If right hon. and hon. Members do not mind, I should like to make a little progress.
One reason why the hon. Member for Foyle has expressed his views and his impatience on decommissioning is that, like the rest of us, he has derived enormous satisfaction from the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. On every other front, the agreement has brought a better way of life for the population as a whole than Northern Ireland has ever known before. It has brought an inclusive Executive, responsible to a locally elected Assembly. There are no longer any outsiders—no more second-class citizens—in the administration of Northern Ireland.
The agreement places the principle of consent at the heart of the Northern Ireland constitution, and the Irish constitution has been amended to reflect that fact. The

agreement has enabled serious, practical north-south co-operation, which has benefited all parts of the island. It has strengthened ties within the United Kingdom and has built a new and vigorous relationship with the rest of the island of Ireland.
The devolved institutions are functioning effectively, proving that it is best to apply local minds to local problems. The agreement has brought Ministers together from different parties of hitherto highly conflicting views. Indeed, those views still conflict strongly in many respects, yet the new Ministers are working together, irrespective of the traditions from which they come, in good faith and in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
The new Ministers are working co-operatively with their counterparts in Dublin, London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. The vigour that they have applied to their new responsibilities proves conclusively that self-rule is far and away the best form of government for Northern Ireland. In addition, there are all the new institutions, and we must spare no effort to ensure their long-term survival.
However, the Good Friday agreement was a finely judged deal. Every detail and every word was included in it for a reason and contributes to its overall balance. That is why every other part of the agreement has been implemented, is in the process of being implemented or has a plan in existence for its implementation in the near future. We must acknowledge the importance of having all parts of the agreement go forward together. Each part is interdependent. To maintain confidence in the agreement as a whole, it is necessary that each part moves forward.
Alongside the new Executive, north-south ministerial and implementation bodies have been set up. Human rights and equality commissions have been established. Reform of policing and of criminal justice are moving forward. Prisoner releases continue—causing, I must say, understandable anguish among many victims' families, but going ahead none the less. Normalisation of security arrangements grows as the security threat subsides.
All those things are happening, and much else besides. All of it is necessary if we are to build confidence in the peace process. However, confidence building is not a one-way street.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Good Friday agreement commits all parties to work in good faith for the fulfilment of all parts of the agreement, including decommissioning?

Mr. Mandelson: I can confirm that. As recently as the Mitchell review and its outcome, Sinn Fein again recorded its view that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process. That is most important, because members of both traditions need to feel that their commitment is reciprocated, but, at present, that confidence has slumped.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I will in a moment.
Actual, verifiable decommissioning is vital if we are to retain the faith of all parties in the Good Friday agreement—not just decommissioning by the IRA, but by all the paramilitary organisations. Each of them has


an obligation; we must see decommissioning being undertaken by all of them, if the agreement as a whole is to be properly and effectively implemented.

Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Was it not implicit throughout all the negotiations for the Good Friday agreement that Adams and McGuinness spoke for the IRA? Indeed, it was reported in The Sunday Times that McGuinness made explicit the fact that he spoke for the IRA. That is why we are in our present pass. Will the Secretary of State confirm that? Will he tell us whether the Irish Government support the legal process that we are about to put in train?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into the intricacies of the relationships between different parts of the republican movement—I am not an expert on that subject. I only note that it was significant that, at the conclusion of the Mitchell review, the IRA issued a statement in which it pointed out, among other things, that it acknowledged the leadership of Sinn Fein in those matters. Implicit in that was an acceptance of the strategy, the policies and, indeed, the expressed positions that had been taken by Sinn Fein. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about the Irish Government in a moment.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I am going to save up the hon. Gentleman's interventions. It would be an enormous shame if I were to take them all in a rush at the outset of my remarks, because I should have nothing to look forward to later.
It is important to note what George Mitchell—

Mr. Bercow: I am not going away.

Mr. Mandelson: I know that.
In December last year, when George Mitchell celebrated the success of his review of the agreement, he said:
I believe that the basis now exists for devolution to occur, for the institutions to be established, and for decommissioning to take place as soon as possible.
He concluded that
there is no other way forward".
He was absolutely right.
Against that background, Ulster Unionists always made it clear that, if there was no progress on decommissioning by the end of January, it would be very difficult for them to remain in the Executive. No commitments or guarantees were made on the other side. I have always made that clear; I have never claimed that anyone guaranteed that anything would happen by any particular date. Indeed, Sinn Fein made it clear that premature public

deadlines made its task—of persuading the IRA to move—all the more difficult. Nor do I think, in that connection, that it helps matters for anyone to accuse anyone else of acting in bad faith. Nobody has a monopoly of good intentions in this situation.
None the less, it was made clear to all those involved in the Mitchell review that substantive, tangible progress in decommissioning would be needed to sustain Unionist commitment to the Executive beyond the end of January.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I recognise that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has ruled out the possibility of the purchase of decommissioned equipment. Will that proposal still be on the agenda in the difficult months that now face us?

Mr. Mandelson: I am not conscious of that proposal ever having been placed prominently on the agenda. However, in so far as it was being considered, it may still be considered in its proper place and by the appropriate people—the international decommissioning body and its three commissioners headed by General John de Chastelain.
Whatever the virtue of that proposal, it is not simply the continued absence of actual decommissioning that is causing the current difficulty. It is the uncertainty about whether decommissioning will ever happen and, if so, when and on what terms it will take place. When I say, "on what terms," I do not mean British terms and I do not mean Unionist terms, either. It is not for the British Government, the Ulster Unionist party or any other group to impose on any other organisation the terms on which it voluntarily carries out actions of arms' decommissioning. It is, however, a matter for those organisations to engage properly with the de Chastelain commission and to agree with it—within the terms of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997—how decommissioning will take place and within what acceptable time frame. All that remains, I am afraid, unclear, despite the availability of the de Chastelain commission to take matters forward.
Of course, I applaud the fact that the Provisional IRA's guns are silent. Everyone in Northern Ireland is enormously relieved that those guns are silent. Its ceasefire during the past two and a half years has been an indispensable condition for politics to work in Northern Ireland. I welcome its expressed desire for a permanent peace. The absence of the word "permanent", as some hon. Members and certain right hon. Members are aware, was once an insuperable obstacle to progress. Now it has been said and the obstacle has been surmounted.
If the war is over, we have to ask the Provisional IRA why arms still need to be retained. If violence is a thing of the past, why cannot weapons of violence be put permanently beyond use, as they should be, and as the Good Friday agreement lays down that they should be? I know of absolutely no section of nationalist opinion anywhere that disagrees with that sentiment. Of course—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows of a section of nationalist opinion that disagrees with that sentiment.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. He has said some extraordinary things. Does he not think that, possibly,


Sinn Fein might be a section of that opinion that does not wish to give up weapons because Sinn Fein and the IRA, as his own Prime Minister has said, are inextricably linked? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman therefore realises that, if the IRA does not want to give up weapons, Sinn Fein does not want to give up weapons, either.

Mr. Mandelson: As the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I was referring not to republican opinion but to nationalist opinion, and the key point stands. Anything that smacks of surrender is unjustified; nobody is seeking to humiliate anyone in these circumstances. I cannot think of anything that would be more destructive.
Any cause or sentiment that unites the Irish Government, the American Government, editorial writers in Dublin, Cork, Boston, Washington and New York, the leadership and rank and file of the SDLP and public opinion in the north and south of Ireland surely cannot be wrong. All that coalition—that breadth and wealth of opinion—has stated unambiguously that the time for decommissioning is now, and that a start must be made by the Provisional IRA. Yet, as matters stand, a way forward continues to elude us.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that after the atrocities at Enniskillen, Omagh and Canary Wharf, world opinion expressed much the same sentiment as is now being expressed, but inevitably gravitated back towards support for Sinn Fein and their aims?

Mr. Mandelson: Public opinion was right then and it remains right—decommissioning needs to start. I was disappointed and slightly taken aback that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle the other day supported an early token act of decommissioning, his intervention was dismissed as inappropriate by the chairman of Sinn Fein. That is a lordly and arrogant rebuff to someone who has committed much to the peace process and who has been rewarded with a Nobel peace prize for his efforts.
As I said in my statement last week, the circumstances mean that the cross-community support necessary for the institutions to operate successfully is, I am afraid, fast ebbing away. I hope that the circumstances will yet change, but that requires clarity about whether decommissioning will happen, how it will happen and when it will begin. Without such clarity, the current loss of cross-community confidence is so serious that the Executive would simply fall apart. Where that is clearly foreseeable, we must ensure that good government for all the people of Northern Ireland continues.

Mr. Bercow: rose>—

Mr. Tony Benn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I give way first to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Benn: Given what my right hon. Friend has said, and the broad measure of world support for

decommissioning and the process, why is he terminating the north-south links and the intergovernmental links, when nobody could possibly blame the Irish Government for having played any part whatever in delaying decommissioning and when, indeed, they have been entirely positive in their contribution to the agreement?

Mr. Mandelson: I shall come to that in a moment. It is enormously regrettable that we have to suspend the north-south institutions and the implementation bodies, not least because already in their short time they are making a valuable contribution to life in the island of Ireland. However, all those institutions are interdependent; they are all interlocked in terms of the Good Friday agreement, to which we have all been signatories.
I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) before resuming my speech.

Mr. Bercow: My patience is rewarded, and I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is much good will towards him in the Chamber today, but I hope that he will not risk sapping that good will by continuing to try to imitate Kafka in the opaqueness of his statements. Will he state categorically to the House how he believes that confidence, about which he rightly talked, is increased by non-publication of the de Chastelain report?

Mr. Mandelson: If the hon. Gentleman lived in Northern Ireland and had lived through the enormous encouragement and excitement that people in Northern Ireland have experienced with the establishment of those institutions, as well as through the disappointment and demoralisation that they feel now that those institutions are threatened, he would be focusing on something else, and something frankly more significant than a single report by General de Chastelain. The hon. Gentleman says that his patience has paid dividends. I must express my disappointment in him. Unless he comes up with rather more substantive interventions, I may not be tempted to give way again.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State should give way. It was emphasised in the House last week that we were discussing the Belfast agreement. In the light of the Secretary of State's answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), may I point out that the only link with Good Friday is that the innocent are suffering with the guilty, whereas it should be the guilty who suffer?

Mr. Mandelson: The House has heard the hon. Gentleman's point and will evaluate it.
Some people have said to me—indeed, some of my hon. Friends have remarked—that we should not be taking an axe to the institutions, that we should sustain them and keep them going, and that the last thing that anyone in Northern Ireland needs is for the very successful Executive and institutions to be suspended, as may well be the case at the end of the week, unless circumstances change.
However, those people are posing a false choice. The choice before us is not between institutions being suspended and institutions which, if they were left alone, would continue to perform successfully in the future,


as they have done to date. We are not faced with the choice between suspension and imperfect continuation of the Executive.
We are faced with a very different choice. It is a choice between suspending the institutions, or seeing them progressively and quite rapidly collapse because confidence in them has plummeted. In other words, it is not a choice between suspension and carrying on as we are. It is a choice between pause or bust in the institutions.

Mr. Hunter: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I have already given way to him.
It is in no one's interest for those fragile institutions to be allowed to shatter irreversibly, simply because it is too hard or too painful to take the necessary action to forestall that now.
Delay in acting will not buy us time in the present circumstances. If we delay, it will only make the landing harder, unless between now and the end of the week a substantial turnround of events occurs and we have answers to the essential decommissioning questions—whether it will take place and when.
A pause in the operation of the institutions, far from allowing them to collapse, will preserve them, save them for the future and enable them to be revived at a future date. It will allow all our efforts to focus on finding a way forward, through a review that would ensue following a suspension—a way, I hope quickly, to restore the institutions and make progress on decommissioning and all the other aspects of the agreement.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Last Thursday I urged him to ensure that if suspension must take place, the period of suspension will be as short as possible. Will he confirm that the review will be treated as a matter of urgency? Who is to conduct the review? Is it likely to be jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend and Mr. Cowen of the Irish Government?

Mr. Mandelson: Those are important details, which I need to consider with the Irish Government under the terms of paragraph 7 of the Good Friday agreement. We will do that speedily. It is important that every hon. Member understands the imperative for and urgency of our actions. If we do not put the operation of the institutions on hold, subsequent events would so severely compromise and shatter their operation, that they would rapidly and irreversibly unravel. No hon. Member should doubt—I do not believe that any hon. Member will doubt—that the First Minister and his colleagues would resign their positions in view of the loss of confidence in the Executive and the institutions.
We must be clear about what would ensue if we lost the First Minister from his position. First, the Deputy First Minister would automatically cease to hold office at the same time. I cannot choose, or wave a magic wand, to change that. As sure as night follows day, consequences would follow. No other credible candidates would secure a majority of Unionists and a majority of nationalists in the Assembly. An alternative First Minister and Deputy First Minister would have to do that if they were to stand any chance of election. The cross-community majority would not exist for another ticket.
In such circumstances, I would be obliged within six weeks to call fresh Assembly elections. At best, those elections would cement the existing stalemate. At worst, they would further polarise the divisions that have emerged, and make conducting a successful review almost impossible—let alone reverting to the existing Executive and institutions. The last thing to emerge from those circumstances would be another consensual, cross-party Government in Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland would simply cease to operate. I will not let that Government simply collapse into a black hole. That would happen if we allowed events to unfold—as they certainly would—without taking the necessary action before reaching that point at the end of week.

Mr. Peter Robinson: If the Secretary of State intends to comment on the point that I am about to make later in his speech, I am happy to wait until then. What is the ingredient that is required for reinstating devolution? For the Secretary of State, is it simply a statement from the Provisional IRA that it intends to decommission and that it has a timetable, or will he ask for product up front?

Mr. Mandelson: It is not me who has to be satisfied. First, General de Chastelain and his commission have to be satisfied that all the paramilitary organisations are properly and effectively engaging not only with the principle of decommissioning, but with the modalities of how it will be achieved. More important than satisfying General de Chastelain and his colleagues, the community and public opinion in Northern Ireland must be satisfied. That means that both traditions in Northern Ireland must be satisfied that decommissioning is taking place on an acceptable, effective basis. Unless both traditions are equally satisfied, and confidence in the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement is properly rebuilt, the Executive and institutions will not be able to resume their current operation. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not the case that not only the IRA, but the loyalists are not decommissioning? How does my right hon. Friend address Sinn Fein's point that the British Government are responding to an artificial deadline imposed by the Ulster Unionists? The real deadline is a couple of months down the road, in May.

Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that my hon. Friend was present at the beginning of my speech when I addressed that point by saying that the problem we face is indecision or reluctance to decommission not only on the part of the Provisional IRA but on the part of all the paramilitary organisations. De Chastelain has obtained from certain of the loyalist paramilitaries an undertaking that they would follow if the Provisional IRA were to decommission. That is progress—something we can tuck under our belt—but we have to be absolutely realistic, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be. The biggest such stumbling block is the Provisional IRA's inability even to address the need to give a clear and unequivocal indication of its intention to decommission, let alone when and how it will do so. Without any sense of recrimination, threat, anger or anything else, I say that that is what we need to make progress, and for confidence in the institutions to be rebuilt.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As that is such a massive problem, what does my right hon. Friend think


of a national day of reconciliation on which all relevant bodies might act together to provide reassurance to the others?

Mr. Mandelson: That is a creative and imaginative suggestion. I have always said—without in any way conceding an equivalence between legally and illegally held weapons—that normalisation of the security profile and elimination of the threat should go hand in hand. I am very willing to give further thought to those general ideas.
Let me quickly run through the contents of the Bill. It enables what I hope—if it proves necessary—will be the temporary return to Northern Ireland of direct rule. Under clause 1, while the institutions, including the Executive, are on hold, neither the Assembly nor its Committees will meet. All Northern Ireland Ministers and the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Statutory Committees will cease to hold office, although under clause 3 all Ministers and other office holders who lost office but are still eligible are automatically reappointed to their previous office when the institutions are restored.
Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a restoration order to end the suspension, taking into account the outcome of the review. The schedule sets out that executive responsibility will return to the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Departments acting under the direction of the Secretary of State. Legislation that would normally be made by the Assembly will be made by Order in Council approved by Parliament. A restoration order and its revocation must, under clause 7, be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to return the functions of the implementation bodies to the relevant Northern Ireland Departments, in line with arrangements agreed with the Irish Government. That reflects the underlying principle of the agreement that all these institutions are interlocking and interdependent.
Those are serious steps, but in the absence of any progress they will, I believe, preserve the institutions from collapse and enable us to revive them at the earliest possible date. May I say this to the House in conclusion? The bomb attack in Fermanagh on Sunday reminds us that, tragically, there are still people in Northern Ireland who prefer violence and chaos to peace and stability. My sympathy goes out to all those in Irvinestown whose property has been destroyed and whose peace has been shattered.
These futile, cowardly assaults on the overwhelming will of the people are what the Good Friday Agreement sought to end. I believe it is the duty of the British Government, and, indeed, of the Irish Government, and of all the political parties, to deliver the people's will and put this process back on track.
There will never be a better agreement than this. The Good Friday Agreement is a replete and robust agreement. It is a near perfect settlement, and I believe that if we were to scrap it and start negotiating it from scratch what we then ended up with would be very, very similar indeed to what we have at present. I really do not think there will be a better agreement than this. With this Bill the Government are moving to guard its integrity and the confidence of all sides in it.
I hope that all hon. Members will feel able to give us and the Bill their support, so that we can preserve and save what we have, in order to revive it another day, if it

should prove necessary, as I hope it will not, to put on pause the operation of the institutions at the end of this week.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I should like immediately to associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State's remarks about the people of Irvinestown. It was a devastating blow to that small and peaceful community when, at 7.20 on Sunday evening, a bomb exploded in the town and caused such damage. Can we as a House send one absolutely clear message to the men of violence, wherever they happen to come from? They will never succeed in their objectives by such dastardly actions, which are always, without exception, completely counter-productive.
We strongly support the Bill and shall vote for it if need be. We support it for a very simple reason: ever since it became clear that it was most unlikely that any substantial decommissioning would take place, we have believed that the only way forward was for the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive, the Assembly and the other relevant institutions. Clearly, for that to be done we must put direct rule back in place. That, basically, is what this legislation is all about.
Before I go into detail on the Bill, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I return for a final time to what I think has been a dreadful mistake by the Secretary of State. I believe that the House was owed an explanation as to why the de Chastelain report has not been published. The House has been put in an unenviable position, having to take decisions tonight on direct rule without knowing what the general said in that report.
I repeat again to the Secretary of State that I fully accept that there might be sensitive, particularly security-sensitive, items in that report. By all means exclude those, but we need to see the conclusions. Even at this late hour, I hope he will reconsider and, before we vote on Second Reading or on any of the amendments, will place the report, or at least its conclusions, in the Library or the Vote Office.

Mr. Steve McCabe: The right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. He has already told us twice today that he welcomes the Bill. He has been calling for this suspension for weeks. Whether he sees the report has no bearing on his judgment; he has made it absolutely clear where he stands. Surely there is no point in pursuing this.

Mr. MacKay: I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The House must have the maximum information available before reaching a decision: that is how it works. The Secretary of State rightly referred to the report both today and in his statement on Thursday, and, as right hon. and hon. Members have said—not just Conservatives, but Liberal Democrats and Unionists—if a report has been referred to, it is only proper for the information to be placed before the House so that all Members can reach a decision.
I willingly acknowledge that—as the Secretary of State has heard me say a number of times, from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere—I believe suspension to be right. I am not convinced that all Members share my views at this stage, but they might if they saw what was in the


report. I believe that the report should be published, but I will not dwell on the issue. I leave the Secretary of State to reflect on it further as the debate proceeds.
This is an extremely sad day for the people of Northern Ireland. They, naturally, yearn for a lasting peace, and they have hoped and prayed for decommissioning. They have been dreadfully let down. Over the past few weeks, they have enjoyed having their own Executive and elected Assembly. The democratic deficit that I consider to have been so damaging to the body politic in Northern Ireland had been eradicated, and we saw Northern Ireland's elected politicians taking responsibility for much that happened in the Province. That was healthy, right and proper. As the Secretary of State willingly acknowledged, it is the first and best option for the present and future governance of Northern Ireland. It was working, and I believe that it would have continued to work.
A number of distinguished past office holders are present—Members who have served in the Northern Ireland Office as Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State. I know they would agree that the alternative, direct rule, is very much second best. Although it will now be necessary, it is a great pity that it had to happen at all.
It is worth reflecting on why the Secretary of State has introduced this Bill, and why it is gaining support on the Opposition Benches. I believe that, towards the end of last year, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was courageous in agreeing to serve on the Executive along with his Unionist colleagues, although there had been no decommissioning by the Provisional IRA, and to serve with Sinn Fein Ministers. It was a brave decision, but it was also the right decision—a decision that I have consistently and strongly supported. That decision was made, however, because there was an understanding that, once the Executive had been set up, decommissioning would commence in a matter of weeks. The Secretary of State confirmed that to me at the Dispatch Box on Thursday.
I do not wish to apportion blame unduly, but I think that we must be clear about this. The simple truth is that the First Minister, the Secretary of State and I, along with the whole House, have been let down by Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. They have failed to deliver the decommissioning that it was understood would happen once the Executive was in place. It must be said that with the paramilitaries, whether republican or so-called loyalist, it has been all take and, to date, absolutely no give.
As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, every other aspect of the Belfast agreement has been implemented, or is being implemented. In other words, the two Governments, British and Irish, and the constitutional parties, Unionist and nationalist, have fulfilled all their obligations. The only people who have not fulfilled their obligations under the Belfast agreement are the paramilitaries, republican and loyalist: they have failed to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives.
I want to address the arguments presented by Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and some of the so-called loyalist paramilitary leaders. They say, "All that the Belfast agreement stated was that over a two-year period, concluding on 22 May, all illegally held arms and explosives must be decommissioned; so why the rush?

We do not have to do it yet." Looking at the situation and knowing that all illegally held arms and explosives have to be decommissioned over a two-year period by 22 May, any reasonable person would conclude that, 21 months on, the fact that not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in by any of the parties that signed up to the agreement shows that they are not fulfilling their obligations. That is why it is absolutely essential that decommissioning commences before the Executive and the Assembly can be reinstated.
As the Secretary of State confirmed, prisoner releases are a sensitive issue. If we go back to the summer of 1998, when the House passed the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, initially, we understood why the Government released terrorist prisoners early back on to the streets of Belfast. It was right—in fact, it was essential—that the Government showed their good will to the paramilitaries and moved first. However, by the autumn of 1998, it was clear that a large number of prisoners, republican and loyalist, had been released early, yet there had been no decommissioning whatever.
It was at that point that we said clearly that we believed that no further prisoners should be released until there had been genuine progress on decommissioning. We have repeated that again and again in the House. We have the reprehensible situation today that more than 300 terrorist prisoners have been released early, but still not one gun, or ounce of Semtex, has been decommissioned.
I want to say in the gentlest way possible to the relatively new Secretary of State that we sincerely and deeply believe that, had we been listened to in the autumn of 1998 and thereafter, when we said, "Stop prisoner releases until there is some decommissioning," we would not be in the position today of finding no decommissioning and of having to suspend both the Executive and the Assembly. That is regrettable. I will not dwell further on the matter, but it is important that the point be made.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Nigel Beard: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a different view? The reason why the republicans, and certainly the IRA, are so isolated today is because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement. If we had not, if prisoner releases had been stopped and the rest of it, they would have had an excuse. They would have said, "Look. The British have not done what they claimed they would do." It is precisely because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement and the IRA has not even issued a statement on decommissioning that it is isolated, not us. That is recognised internationally.

Mr. MacKay: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman because I sincerely and deeply believe that, had we stopped prisoner releases earlier, decommissioning would have started. The reason why the paramilitaries are isolated today is because of the courage of the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and of his colleagues in going into that Executive and testing


whether they were prepared to decommission and be of their word. Sadly, we have found that that is not the case. It is deeply regrettable.
As to the future, I have some observations and some questions for the Secretary of State, which I hope he will find helpful and to which I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will respond at the end of the debate. If pressure is brought to bear on the paramilitaries, it will be essential—I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—that both loyalist and republican paramilitaries decommission. The reason why we emphasise the role of the Provisional IRA is simply because, as the Prime Minister has rightly told us, it is inextricably linked to Sinn Fein and it is Sinn Fein that holds ministerial office in the Executive. However, to achieve lasting progress, we shall have to have decommissioning in full, quickly, by all the paramilitaries—from both the republican and the loyalist wings—who signed up to the agreement.
If we do get decommissioning moving to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain—I emphasise again to the Secretary of State our confidence in the general and his international commission—may we have an undertaking that the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly will be immediately lifted? I think that the Secretary of State shares my view that direct rule is very much second best, and that we shall be anxious to return to an Executive and an Assembly as soon as possible.
It seems to me essential that, if the legislation proceeds through both Houses—as I hope and believe that it will this week—it should receive Royal Assent on Friday. Subsequently, it will be within the Secretary of State's power to suspend as and when he sees fit. On the assumption—I hope that it is a false assumption, but fear that it is a realistic one—that there is no substantial decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by the Provisional IRA to the general's satisfaction, may I have an absolute undertaking that the Executive and Assembly will be suspended by the end of this week? For reasons that are self-evident and that I do not wish to dwell upon, it would be most unwise to delay any longer, as that could be extremely damaging to the process.
I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he will be able to give me positive replies on those points.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I note the seriousness of the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Perhaps that seriousness would be reinforced if he gave us the reasons why he feels that it is essential that that should be done by this Friday.

Mr. MacKay: It is essential—as I think the hon. Gentleman, the Deputy First Minister, will be aware—because, in a democratic, civilised society, it is not right, practical or possible for people to share ministerial office for any length of time with those who have not completely renounced violence for good. If anyone is inextricably linked to the Provisional IRA—as Sinn Fein is—and if the Provisional IRA has failed to decommission any of its

illegally held arms or explosives, it would not be right or proper for him or her to be in ministerial office for any length of time with other Ministers.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman did ask me a question. Although I should be very happy to allow him to intervene again, I should do him the justice of completing my answer. I shall then be only too pleased to give way to him again.
I believe that, in those circumstances, it is inevitable, right and proper that others who hold ministerial office would be forced to resign those offices, bringing down the Executive. I think that that would be the wrong way forward. The Secretary of State knows that I believe that, at the end of this week, if there has not been a proper start to decommissioning, the right way forward would be for him to suspend the Executive and Assembly. That would be in the Province's best interests and in everyone's best interests.
I hope that that satisfies the Deputy First Minister on my position. I should be very happy to give way, if he wishes to cross-examine me further.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. My questions are asked only in the interests of clarity, which is so important in these issues. If I were to suggest that it should happen on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday—in the hope that that would provide time to achieve the type of movement on decommissioning that could prevent a suspension—would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to do it on Friday? Does he agree that we should provide that time, if there is a hope that it might work?

Mr. MacKay: I would need a huge amount of convincing. Time and again the paramilitaries and their political friends have broken timetables and assurances, and failed to abide by understandings. The only way forward is either—as I hope—for decommissioning to have commenced to the satisfaction of the general by the end of the week or for the Secretary of State to suspend. I do not think that there is any other option.

Mr. Tony Benn: I have listened intently to the right hon. Gentleman. Why does he think that a Minister should take away the rights of the electors in Northern Ireland? Ministers come and go and can be sacked, moved or defeated even in this country, but the characteristic of the Belfast agreement was that it gave the people of Northern Ireland the right to decide. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he wants their electoral rights taken away by Friday. When Assemblies are dissolved there are further elections. What makes him so sure that the Government should abolish the democratic electoral rights of the people of Northern Ireland? What gain would that bring to anyone?

Mr. MacKay: It will be up to the House to decide what happens in a vote or a series of votes later tonight. I have told the Secretary of State clearly that he has my full support in introducing the Bill. I have confidence in his making the right decision and suspending on Friday because, as I said in answer to the Deputy First Minister a few moments ago, I believe that in a free, democratic,


civilised, liberal democracy, people who fail to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives cannot hold ministerial office. It may be acceptable for them to hold office for a short time to encourage them to decommission. That is why I supported the establishment of the Executive and backed the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues when they entered into office with Sinn Fein. There was an understanding when they did so that there would be decommissioning within weeks. As we all know, after more than just a few weeks—we are now well into February—that has not happened. It is deeply regrettable, but that is the position that the Secretary of State and the House are in.

Mr. Brian Cotter: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if General de Chastelain and the commission were to say that a few more days after Friday could produce a result, that would be enough for a possible route forward?

Mr. MacKay: I would need to study carefully the text of what General de Chastelain said. As we do not have the current report and we are not getting very far with his text today, I am not confident. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The people of Northern Ireland, the House and world opinion have been let down time and again. We have been strung along with promises, understandings and timetables that have not been kept. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not confident of believing anything short of decommissioning. I would need an awful lot of convincing, even from a report from the general—even if the Secretary of State chose to publish it.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from its inception with the Downing street declaration, the understanding that only parties totally committed to peaceful and democratic methods could be included has been inherent in the process? From then on there has been a continuous resiling from that principle. It is perfectly in order for the democratic majority in Northern Ireland to say that we are not going to sit down in an institution of government that claims to be democratic with the political representatives of a paramilitary terrorist group.

Mr. MacKay: Over the past 18 months, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and I have clashed and disagreed over the Belfast agreement and its implementation, but on the point that he raises, we are probably as one. For no sustainable period can one have people who are inextricably linked to paramilitaries who are not decommissioning being Ministers in any part of a civilised democracy, such as the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I like to think that I can carry the whole House with that view. That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill and why I have—for some weeks, after it became abundantly clear that decommissioning was unlikely—been urging the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive and the Assembly.
I hope that suspension will be for the shortest period possible and that pressure will be put on the paramilitaries—so-called loyalist and republican—to decommission. I hope also that the House will send a clear and unanimous message to the men of violence that there is no way they will ever achieve their objectives; the right

way forward is through the democratic process; and that they have real opportunities, through the Assembly and the Executive, to be part of that process at last. They will not easily be forgiven by the people of Northern Ireland if they do not grasp that opportunity quickly. The eyes of the world will be on them. I hope and pray that they are listening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members requested at a late stage to speak in this debate. I therefore make the plea for contributions to be brief.

Mr. John Major: During the last 10 years or so, this House of democrats has taken a great deal on trust from the present Government and its predecessor Government over Northern Ireland. It is clear from the Secretary of State's speech that we must take a certain amount on trust again today. In the present circumstances, I hope that the House will be prepared to do so.
This is a Bill that no one wished to see. Over the years, great progress has been made—old hatreds disentangled and old opponents working together in a way quite unprecedented at any time during recent years in Ireland. Nationalism and Unionism have learned a great deal, one about the other, as they have worked together over the past months. As a result, for a period the guns have been silenced, peace has had a chance, and for many everyday people of Northern Ireland a hope was born that previously was not there. Almost at the final hurdle, there is a stumble and optimism turns to despair.
There are three possible outcomes to the present impasse. The happy outcome is that there will be a change of heart and decommissioning will begin. I hope for that outcome profoundly, but it is unlikely in the short term. I certainly do not expect it in the next few days.
The unhappy outcome is that the old antagonisms will return in full flood and the murder, mayhem, killing and bombing will recommence. I do not expect that outcome either, although fringe groups—as, tragically, we have seen over the past few days—may return to violence, as they may have done even if the process had continued and proved successful. There have always been those wishing the process to fail for political reasons. There have always been those wishing it to fail because they hide straightforward criminality under the guise of a political struggle.
The third possible outcome is the one that I expect. There will be an uneasy time ahead—while political effort continues in London, Belfast and Dublin—as a way out of the box in which we find ourselves is sought. Today's decision by the House will offer time for that work to go ahead.
The box is well understood by all right hon. and hon. Members. Arms are not being decommissioned. Why not? If it is because the paramilitaries—and on this occasion, I mean especially the IRA—have an undiminished appetite for a united Ireland at all costs and by any means, the future is a good deal more uncertain than anyone in the House would wish it to be. However, they must have realised—or this process would not have made the


progress that it has—that 25 years of violence have not delivered to them the objectives that they sought. There have been enough signs that there are those in the IRA and Sinn Fein who seek a political path for the future, not a violent path.
The sensible democrat helps the embryonic democrat to find the way to democracy. That is what London, Dublin and Belfast have been doing for years, with the active involvement of the democratic political parties on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. I hope, at this moment of difficulty, that we do not underestimate the progress that has been made, or what exists still to build upon, even if our present ambitions fall apart in our hands. It is at least possible—and there were times when I thought that it was not possible but probable—that the leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA are prepared to begin decommissioning, but do not know how, or do not have the courage, the confidence or the support of their movements at this moment to do so.
Some time ago, when we heard from the Government talk of a seismic shift, I assumed that private commitments had been given. That was a reasonable assumption that I was not alone in making. Either that was careless talk, which I doubt, or the Government were misled. In either event, it is clear that, sadly, the seismic shift has not taken place. Let us consider why that might be. It is not an easy proposition, but I invite hon. Members to try to put themselves in the minds of the IRA to appreciate the dilemma as the IRA sees it. It may be instructive to do so. This House of democrats does not agree with the IRA, but it is instructive to try to understand its perspective, for it is always useful to see into the mind of the people with whom one is dealing. Understanding of that sort is never pointless.
Decommissioning is not just the decision of one or two leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA; it is a much more difficult decision to obtain. It requires the consent of the army council of the IRA and a full meeting of so-called volunteers—including those whom I mentioned a moment ago for whom criminality has been a way of life for the best part of the last quarter of a century. That is a difficult proposition to deliver, although it is absolutely necessary and we must continue to demand it.
It is for that reason that, last week, I asked the Secretary of State if the leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA had been invited by the Government or anyone else to place a proposal for decommissioning before the army council of the IRA, so that we could see the response. To be diplomatic, the Secretary of State was opaque in the answer that he declined to give me. That is a pity, although I do not press him again, as his silence was eloquent enough. It is a pity, because his answer would have been informative to those of us having to take a decision today in considering the correct policies to follow tomorrow.
The great need, after today, is to stick the glue around what has been achieved and to make sure that it does not slip away even though the final hurdle at the moment has not been jumped. It may be that the leaders of the IRA never intended to disarm at all. If that is the case, in my judgment they misled the nationalist community as well as everybody else. Decommissioning does matter, because both traditions in Northern Ireland need the assurance of

peace in the long term that only decommissioning can bring. It is a tragedy that it is not at present being delivered.
Now, of course, the leaders of Sinn Fein say that decommissioning was never offered as part of the Belfast agreement, and even have the temerity to be offensive to the Secretary of State when he speaks critically of their position. The right hon. Gentleman will have to bear the occasional criticism, because, as I can tell him, it goes with the job. He had better learn to like it, because it will continue to do so. When the leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA speak in that fashion, we should bear in mind that they are addressing their hardliners as much as they are addressing everybody else. We should not fall into the trap of giving those hardliners the opportunity of making life even more difficult for the leaders and hence for the process.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that the highest echelons of security information state that at least four high-ranking members of Sinn Fein are also members of the seven-man IRA military council?

Mr. Major: I am well aware of the inter-relationship. I neither confirm nor deny security information, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must stand on his own comments. Suffice it to say that the interrelationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA is long-standing. We cannot, even the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot—I wish we could—see into the minds of those people and know truly what their objectives are and whether they are seeking to bring a movement towards peace or seeking to pull the wool over our eyes. I do not know the answer to that and neither does the hon. and learned Gentleman. He may have his suspicions—we all do—but we do not know. If there is no intention of disarming, we will have to continue to look for other ways to deal with the problem, and that will become apparent in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider one other possibility? Whatever Semtex is handed in, those we are dealing with would want more. If they gave everything in, they could cancel the agreement and we would be back where we started. In looking into the minds of those we are dealing with, we have to consider the possibility of obstacle after obstacle being raised and none of them being satisfied. Therefore, there may be an element of suspicion apart from the desire to reunite Ireland, which nobody thinks is possible, because neither the north or south wants it.

Mr. Major: I am familiar with the argument that people could go out and buy more Semtex, but one of the aspects of a wholesale decommissioning is that the IRA disarmed is not a sustainable organisation. The disarmament of the IRA amounts to its disbandment. Other fringe groups, such as Continuity IRA—the present IRA is, after all, a fringe group of an earlier body—may return to violence, but once there is wholesale disarmament we will be in a different position, including politically. In that case, no one could doubt that there was no sympathy in any part of any community—as in the past there has been—for the activities of the men of violence. It would be straightforward criminality in


everyone's mind, not just in the minds of democrats such as the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members, and it could be dealt with in that fashion. Once there is a general level of decommissioning, there would be a complete sea change, even if some people then moved to fringe groups and rearmed themselves.
The question we must face is where we go from the present situation. The Bill establishes the power to adopt direct rule which, sadly, is inevitable and will, barring some extraordinary turn of events, be adopted by the House today and brought into effect over the next few days. Many gloomy words have been said and written about the present impasse and I share the despair that the Bill is necessary and that the promises we thought were made have not been kept. However, even as we despair over that, I hope that we do not carry our despair too far. In our own interests and those of Northern Ireland, we should seek to preserve the gains of recent years, which are substantial.
London and Dublin working together is a sharp change from what happened in the past. The end of the sterile debate of the past is another welcome change. The much greater political engagement across the board that has been brought about is, again, of immeasurable proportions in our understanding, especially when one considers how much distrust and fear have fuelled Northern Irish politics for so long. We need to ensure that the political process continues in some state—albeit, perhaps, abbreviated. Talks should certainly continue, to cement the improved relationship and prevent a return to the political barricades.
Even if this process does, for the time being, falter, as it seems about to do, in parallel with moves to resurrect it the Government are not powerless in the measures that they can take to continue to give hope and optimism to Northern Ireland. Very serious pockets of economic difficulty exist on both sides of the divide, in Unionist and Catholic areas, and they should continue to be tackled vigorously. Often, the grievance that has sustained the paramilitaries has been an economic grievance of people who felt that they were outside the system and believed that they were being represented best by men who were actually representing only their own violent interests. Removing that grievance would deny them the oxygen of support.
In the absence of an Executive, if that is to be a continuing position—which I profoundly hope it is not—the Government might wish to look at the devolution of more powers directly to local government. The concrete achievements of the past decade can certainly be built on.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has talked about things that we can do to give a positive sense of movement. Would he also consider the alternative approach of imposing sanctions? I refer to the release of prisoners. It seems hard to continue with that policy while the IRA refuses to disarm in any sense.

Mr. Major: My right hon. and learned Friend approaches the point that I was about to make, albeit slightly differently. The Secretary of State spoke of confidence building and the role of prisoner release. He may also—I cannot remember—have mentioned the proposed reforms of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As the

right hon. Gentleman said—and I agree with him on this point—confidence building is two-way; it is not one-way. Democracy cannot continue to offer incentives if there is no response to the incentives that are being offered. Without decommissioning, the concessions that have been made by democracy will have to be re-examined to see whether they are still appropriate in the changed circumstance of there being no decommissioning and no immediate sign that decommissioning will commence in the short term.
We should pass the Bill today, without enthusiasm, but we should pass it none the less. As we do so, it is important in the language used here, which finds its echoes outside, that we do not return, and do not encourage other people to return, to the trenches of the past. The message that I hope will go out from the House today is that, notwithstanding the difficulties and disappointments that we are facing, we are still looking for a durable peace that will offer Northern Ireland the ease of mind and security that we on the mainland so easily take for granted. As the Secretary of State searches for that, he deserves our tolerance and support, and I hope that he will receive it.

Mr. David Trimble: Like the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I had hoped that it would not be necessary to bring a Bill such as this before the House. Obviously, when we took the risks that we took at the end of November, we hoped that they would wholly succeed. I am disappointed that we are facing the consequences of the failure of the hopes with which we embarked just over two months ago.
Since last March, there has been an effective stalemate in the development of the political process in Northern Ireland and the implementation of the Good Friday agreement on an issue that is not only about guns, but is, at heart, about whether people are genuinely committed to peaceful means and the democratic process. Last March, Mr. Adams, the person returned to serve as the Member for Belfast, West, but who has not done so, coined the phrase that we should "jump together". In subsequent months, we tried many times to explore with him precisely what he meant. In the event, we never achieved absolute clarity on that point.
None the less, towards the end of the Mitchell review, and in light of the discussions and the understandings arrived at during that process, we decided to jump first. That was not an easy decision to make. One of the great, and soundly based, fears of members of my party and of people in Northern Ireland who have seen what has happened over the years was that they would be sucked into a process and strung along again and again. It became clear to me as we approached the decision taken by the Ulster Unionist council on 27 November that we should not achieve a positive decision unless we addressed that fear of being strung along. We would not achieve a positive decision unless some clear floor were placed beneath the process. That we did, in the letters written by me and my ministerial colleagues and in the council's decision to reconvene to take a final decision.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trimble: No.
That resolution to meet again in February did not set a precondition or a deadline. It was simply the decision of a democratic party to meet to consider the situation. We put no precise requirement in front of anyone, and we did not say, "You must do this or that." As a democratic party, we exercised our right to meet and consider the situation.
February was chosen for the simple reason that a clear understanding existed following the Mitchell review that the sequence being put in train would run until January. The existence of that clear understanding was brought into the public domain when, on 12 December, General de Chastelain issued his second report, which, I am happy to say, the Government published within a matter of minutes of receiving it. In that report, General de Chastelain said that he would make a further report in January.
That sequence could not have surprised anyone. It was basically the same as the sequence contained in the Prime Minister's proposals of last July—"The Way Forward". Those proposals were underpinned by exactly the same arrangements and expectations with regard to decommissioning as were contained in the Mitchell review.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is better able than most to answer the question that I wish to ask. The IRA has made it plain, in terms, that it has no present intent to decommission. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and many others believe that they were at some stage given undertakings to the contrary. What undertakings were given to him on decommissioning, and by whom?

Mr. Trimble: I do not know that it would be helpful to explore that question in detail, but I shall do so in general terms. It was clearly said to us that, by jumping first, we would create the best possible circumstances in which to achieve decommissioning. That assurance was given in a statement issued by Sinn Fein, which said that it was committed to achieving it. The IRA issued a statement—in the public domain—accepting the leadership of Sinn Fein. No concrete guarantee was given. None the less, we were told that those were the best circumstances in which to achieve decommissioning.
In turn, we responded by saying that, if we moved first—to create the optimum conditions—we could sustain that for only a limited period. The capacity of the parties to move and to sustain what they were doing was discussed at great length. There was no misunderstanding about that whatever; if we took the initiative, we could sustain it only for a limited period. There was a clear understanding by all the parties that that time would run out by the end of January. On that, there was, and can be, no misunderstanding at all.
It was further expressly agreed—indeed, the proposition was first put by the republicans themselves—that, if we went forward in that way only to see things collapse a few months later, it would be a bad outcome. I took that to be a clear indication of their intent to proceed. In that situation, we knew that we were giving people an opportunity—in their own description, it was the best opportunity—but one that carried a challenge and a test.
I am amazed that, when we reached the end of January, not only had no actual decommissioning occurred, but no concrete gesture had been made at all by the republican

movement. No one can be sure until we see the detail of the de Chastelain report, but, as far as I am aware, nothing of substance was put on the table; that continues to be the case. I was, and continue to be, amazed that, having encouraged us to create the situation, the republican movement made no positive response.
Given the situation that existed at the end of November and the beginning of December, the republicans can have been in no doubt—nor could any reasonable person—that reciprocation formed part of the understandings; that it was expected; and that the failure to reciprocate would carry consequences. We proceeded "to jump first", but we did so on the basis of certain understandings. The failure of events to develop as we had hoped has falsified the basis on which we proceeded, and clearly makes it impossible for us to continue in the false position in which we now find ourselves. It is, therefore, necessary to reconsider and unwind the matter.
The Secretary of State will remember the statements that he made in November, when he made it clear that, in the event of a failure by republicans to reciprocate, the Government would intervene. He knows the extent to which we relied on those assurances at that time. Similar assurances were forthcoming from the Irish Government; the right hon. Gentleman repeated them in his statement to the House last Thursday. The Irish Government know the extent to which we relied on their assurances when we took our decision.
We have reached the end of January and seen no reciprocation, so it is necessary that the assurances given by the British and Irish Governments are put in train. That would have to be done irrespective of the meetings that will take place on Saturday. Indeed, one might argue that the assurances should have been put in train sooner than this; the reason that nothing was done sooner is that the Irish Government are hoping against hope that something will emerge.
In case my comment sounds a little ungracious, I give the Irish Government credit for the massive efforts being made by Ministers and officials to persuade the republicans to do something—even at this last stage. However, I have to add some cautionary words. It is my understanding that the Irish Government are pressing the republican movement to give a commitment to decommission, and to say when it will do so. Those are the questions put by my colleague, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in the House last Thursday. He asked the IRA to say whether it would decommission and when. The Irish Government are pressing for that commitment, but, as the Secretary of State said last Thursday, words are not enough; it is necessary to go beyond words.
Some people in the press are saying that, in the past, the method used by the IRA in similar situations was to dump their arms. It has been suggested that that might be sufficient in the present circumstances. However, may I say to the Secretary of State—in case he is not fully aware of it—that some very misleading impressions have been given about the dumping of arms? The instruction issued by the leadership of the IRA in, I think, 1925 to its members to dump arms was not an instruction to disarm, and no disarmament occurred. Arms were put in dumps, but they were put in them for future use.
I recommend that those who have any doubts about that read, or reread—I am sure that all hon. Members with an interest in such matters have already read it—


Mr. Sean O'Callaghan's book on the subject. It is not necessary to read beyond the first chapter in which he describes how, in the late 1960s at the outset of civil disorder in Northern Ireland, he and a number of friends and relatives gathered together in a barn, got out their spades and shovels and proceeded to dig up the weapons that had been dumped a few decades ago. They discovered that they had not rusted—weapons do not rust if they are carefully stored—and they proceeded to clean them and dispatch them for murderous use in Northern Ireland. Dumping arms is a chimera.
Reality is the only thing that matters. We have legislation, we have schemes and we have a framework through the international commission. It was agreed in the Mitchell review that decommissioning should take place in and through the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and that that was the only way that it should be done.
There is excellent advice on the subject. Reference has been made to the fact that sources of the media, which in the past were favourable to republicanism, are now taking a different view. The Secretary of State referred to various editorials, and excellent advice appears in today's editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It asks why the IRA has not made a gesture and quotes one observer who said that, in the IRA's eyes,
such a gesture would be symbolic of their being the bad guys".
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette adds that the right of the people of Northern Ireland to live in peace
matters more than a fear by the IRA that disarmament might send the wrong signal. If these 'hard men' are worried about being perceived as the bad guys, they should live up to the spirit as well as the letter of the Good Friday Agreement and give up the guns.
It is as simple as that.
On the other hand, I was glad to see that, in the IRA's statement issued on Saturday, it says that it poses no threat to the peace at present. I hope that that continues to be the case. We are, of course, disturbed by the explosion in Fermanagh and the fact that Continuity IRA, which had been thought to be quiescent, was responsible for that. I had the impression that the main threat from dissident republicans came from the Real IRA elements around Dundalk, but we now see that the elements around Fermanagh are also a threat. That underlines—as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would have reminded the Secretary of State had my hon. Friend been able to be here today—the need to maintain vigilance in Fermanagh. I am glad to see from the Secretary of State's reaction that he understands precisely the point that I make.
There is a serious threat not just from dissident republicans, but from other paramilitaries. May I commend to the Secretary of State the words on that point of the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Ahern? In November last year in the Dail, he contemplated just this situation. If it became evident that people would not desist from their violence, he said that
the only way to counteract such activity is to enforce the legislation in the toughest possible manner.
The legislation to which the Taoiseach referred was emergency legislation in the Irish Republic that was duplicated by the United Kingdom. Since then, it has simply not been utilised at all. It is quite remarkable that we passed emergency legislation that has remained dormant even though there has been a clear need for it in some circumstances.
For a few minutes, I should like to look to the future. We are now faced with restoring direct rule. In doing that, we are doing two things. First, we are ending devolution. Secondly, we are introducing direct rule. That is not the second-best option, but the third because, between the first decision and the second, another option has been missed out, which is simply, after the end of devolution, to treat Northern Ireland as it ought to be treated in the procedures of the House, which is in the same way as anywhere else.
The status quo to which we should return is the status quo before devolution, which was one of normality. It is not desirable to reintroduce abnormal direct rule, which is not a healthy state of affairs for the operation of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman recommending to the House that the preferred option of his party is to go back to the old Stormont rule, before the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) suspended it and introduced direct rule?

Mr. Trimble: The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake: Stormont was also devolution. If we are to go back to before devolution, we must go back to pre-1920, when Northern Ireland was treated in the House in exactly the same way as England, Wales and Scotland, as of course it ought to be. As a democrat, he would support a situation in which all citizens of the United Kingdom are treated equally. That is the only democratic course.
There are of course times when the exigencies of the situation mean that we have to agree on and operate procedures that are less than ideal, and we hope that this return to a less-than-ideal system will be limited. I referred to first-best, second-best and third-best options, and to avoid any doubt that the right hon. Gentleman might have, I make it clear that direct rule is the third-best option and treating Northern Ireland properly is the second best. The best of all is to see devolution succeed within the United Kingdom, and that is what we tried to do through the Belfast agreement and its implementation.

Mr. William Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the process of returning to direct rule, as set out in the Bill, will again make citizens of Northern Ireland second-class citizens within the United Kingdom? In addition, it actively encourages those who wish to take Nor thern Ireland out of the United Kingdom to believe that Britain is not terribly committed to the Union and that they should keep going because eventually they will succeed.

Mr. Trimble: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I would prefer to describe the situation by saying that direct rule is inefficient and unresponsive to the interests and wishes of those who are being ruled. That has been clearly established by the way in which direct rule operated, and it is likely to be the case in future. We all hope that the interruption of devolution is temporary, but we must all be conscious of the fact that we are returning to the third-best option.
I remind the Secretary of State of the remarks that he made in Victoria college in November, when he said that, during any period of suspension, he would like to see what he could do to keep alive the spirit of devolution


and to maintain some degree of political continuity between the devolution that we enjoy at present and that which we hope that we will enjoy again in the not-too-distant future.
In the meantime, while we are suspending the operation of devolution, it is right, as other hon. Members have said, to suspend other aspects of the agreement. As the Secretary of State knows, the suspension must apply not only to the Assembly, but to the associated North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council.
The suspension ought also, however, to relate to matters such as prisoner release and the Patten report. The Secretary of State knows that confidence in Northern Ireland was tremendously damaged by the Patten commission's ill-judged report on certain matters. People in Northern Ireland, particularly those whom I represent, will find it incomprehensible if the default by the republicans is glossed over and radical, deeply wounding changes to appease them continue to be introduced as if nothing has happened. I say to the Secretary of State that people will find inaction on that front and failure to suspend incomprehensible. He needs to think seriously about that in the coming weeks and months.
Hon. Members and others outside should make no mistake about our objective. While we consider it necessary to suspend the operation of the institutions and other aspects of the agreement, it is not our intention in any way to depart from the substance of that agreement. Indeed, we are acting in this way in order to preserve it, because failure so to act will lead to the entire agreement unravelling. The only way to ensure that the agreement is implemented in its entirety and its integrity is to take the present action.
If we proceed now to a review, my objective, and that of the Ulster Unionist party, will be to work for the restoration of devolution and the Executive on a sound basis, and that means resolving the present difficulty. That will be the objective towards which we shall work. In determining whether we can restore devolution on a sound basis, I and my colleagues will exercise our own judgment.
Just as we asked the Ulster Unionist council for approval before jumping first in November, we are asking the Ulster Unionist council to consider the situation and give its view on the matters on Saturday. Although I will not anticipate what the council may say and do on Saturday, it would be reasonable for it to say that, in the event of any move back to devolution, it will exercise its judgment on that as well.
People should not regard the present situation as a crisis. It is a difficulty. They should regard it not as the end of the hopes that the agreement engendered, but just as a problem that we will work through. It is important that we retain confidence in our ability to work through the problem. We should retain confidence that the hopes contained in the agreement will be fully realised.
I was heartened by words that I read in the Irish News this morning. I do not often refer to that paper with approval, but I do on this occasion. Beside the editorial, it had printed some words from Seamus Heaney, who wrote:
There is a cynical definition of peace which says it is merely the suspension of war.

One of the paradoxical blessings of the past two-and-a-half decades of Northern Ireland's history has been an emergent vision of peace as a creative condition in which cultural, political and doctrinal differences can be actively confessed and intelligently contested.
It is the cynics who have used that distortion of peace and who are frustrating the development of the creative condition to which Mr. Heaney refers. It is our intention to try to develop that creative condition as well and as fast as we can.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I want to begin where the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) left off. In its definition of peace, that quotation from Seamus Heaney owes something to Spinoza, but I would go a little further. Peace is not just the absence of war. It is an attitude of mind—a disposition towards benevolence, confidence and justice. Those three factors are worth remembering when we are seeking a definition of peace.
I am tempted to give my own definition of peace. It would be much less poetic and much less philosophical. It would be very basic: it would refer to the fact that we have been able to wake up each morning without having to listen to the bad news about who was killed the night before, how many were killed and where they were killed. That is my simple definition of peace.
I was impressed when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) asked us to do something that we seldom do: to try to get into the minds of other people. It is a worthwhile exercise, and I should like briefly to continue it. It is dangerous to ask rhetorical questions, but I want to pose one because I should like to gain an insight into people's minds. If there was not a Unionist party meeting scheduled for this weekend, and if resignation letters had not been written with that in mind, would the Bill be before the House now? I do not expect an answer, but I anticipate that most people who assess the question honestly will realise that, without those circumstances, we would not be considering the Bill, irrespective of the strong views in all parts of the House on decommissioning. That is the nub of the problem. I shall speak against suspension, despite the fact that I want decommissioning; indeed, I want it to happen as much as, and perhaps more than, other people.
I have been an elected politician in South Armagh for 30 years. I know at first hand the effects of guns and bombs, and the difficulties that such problems cause. I also have experience, going back 30 years, of suspensions. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly that was "put on hold"—or, if one prefers not to use the euphemism, suspended. It was suspended on the understanding that it could be resumed. It was resumed; it took a quarter of a century to do it. We should all bear in mind the fact that suspension or putting on hold do not guarantee a speedy resolution of the problem.
I oppose suspension because things are different now. The institutions are beginning to work. Let me give an anecdote to illustrate that. I stood at a window in Stormont last week and watched droves of farmers driving up to the building for a mass meeting to lobby the Executive about agriculture and the problems of agriculture. Twenty-six years ago, a similar mass lobby took place—with some of the same people and even some of the same tractors and


lorries: except that those people came then to topple the devolution that existed. The two lobbies encapsulate the change that has occurred.
For good or ill, we are dicing with those changes. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but the mental image of those fanners, many of them the same people who participated in the last lobby, and of the change that has taken place, makes me wonder whether the arguments for suspension are sustainable.

Mr. Thompson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembers that there was a similar farmers' demonstration to Stormont 25 years ago. Different sections of the community spoke to them then.

Mr. Mallon: It is ingrained on my memory. It happened during the pig crisis. As a result of it, I, with others, came to the Palace of Westminster to lobby the then Agriculture Minister on behalf of the pig industry. I made a quiet resolution that day that I would never return here to lobby an Agriculture Minister because we were treated so dismissively. We now have a Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, and we are dicing with the potential that that creates.
My second main reason for opposing suspension is that it seems abundantly clear that the chances of decommissioning will be greatly reduced if the institutions do not exist or function. I am not considering who will win the argument, who will lose or not lose face, but the achievement of decommissioning. If suspension occurs, and the institutions are not in place, will decommissioning not be immeasurably more difficult to obtain?
The Secretary of State and other hon. Members referred to George Mitchell's review. On his last day in Northern Ireland after the review, Senator Mitchell said that we could guarantee one thing: without the political institutions, decommissioning would not occur. Those are George Mitchell's words, not those of anyone in the nationalist community. It is incumbent on people to answer the following question: if the institutions are removed, how will the process towards decommissioning take place? I shall return to that point later.
The third reason for opposing suspension is that it plays into the hands of those who oppose the agreement. Many of them are present in the Chamber; some are members of the party led by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Those people will gain satisfaction from suspension. I would never suggest that they might gloat about it, but they would wear the sort of smile that I can already see. Will that help the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or the process in which we are all involved?
My fourth point about suspension is that there is no such thing as a soft landing. That is a fact of political life, and I have experienced enough hard landings to know it. However contrived, and whatever the machinations, when a governmental institution comes to an end, there is no such thing as a soft landing, and we should not assume that putting such an institution on hold will create one. Some people cling to and propagate the notion that suspension will not really be suspension, that the word is used only for parliamentary purposes, that the event will be feather-bedded in some way and that all sorts of contrivances will sustain the institution. The harsh reality

of life is that it cannot and it will not. People will find that out fairly quickly and I believe that we would all be well advised to realise that while we are making this decision.

Mr. Hunter: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument clearly, although I do not necessarily agree with it. However, if he wants the structures and institutions of devolution to be maintained, why is he not basing his case on section 23 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 whereby, with cross-community support, there could be exclusion rather than suspension?

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intrusion. I mean to use that word, because he is suggesting once again that we tear up the Good Friday or Belfast agreement—whichever people want to call it—and do away with inclusiveness.
This goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question: a reason why we are talking about suspension is that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—or, to be impersonal, the First Minister—and the Deputy First Minister would not be returned on the basis of cross-community support in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The reason for that is that there are those in the Ulster Unionist party who would not vote for the First Minister. I can reasonably assume that if they would not vote for their own party leader they would not vote for a nationalist nominee for Deputy First Minister
I may be wrong of course, but I would dearly like to put that to the test for this reason: the right hon. Gentleman and I have had a very difficult two years—especially on that issue, which I shall come to—but the only people outside extreme Unionism in all parties who did not vote for either of us when we were elected First Minister and Deputy First Minister were supporters of Sinn Fein. People keep forgetting that, but I would like to challenge Sinn Fein and those in the Ulster Unionist party and other parties who have taken that stance and go back into the Assembly on the strength of a mandate that could never again be challenged. That is what is at stake here; that is what we are doing.
May I refer to last Sunday's bomb in Irvinestown? I am speaking at a public meeting there on Friday night. I am glad that the hotel is still there. This is not the first occasion; it has been bombed many times. I say to the House, with all the power of conviction that I have, that in a political vacuum those who carry out that type of activity thrive, and nihilism comes to the fore. I fully understand the profound disappointment and impatience of Members of the House. I share it. I share the views of the right hon. Gentleman, my colleague, and many in his party, but I ask them to understand that decommissioning is not a Unionist issue or a Conservative party issue. It is an issue for all who want a new future. I believe that we should all bear in mind the fact that that is being said not only by the Social Democratic and Labour party, but by every party in the Republic of Ireland—every one. Every party that I have been in touch with and know well shares that view. It is the position of the Government here, the Government in Dublin, the Government of the United States and the Government of every single country in Europe.
In the run-up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, we had a remarkably long debate about the right of self-determination of the Irish people. They have


self-determined that no group on the island of Ireland should hold illegal weapons. Who has the right to stand in the way of the voice of the Irish people when they have self-determined that issue? I repeat that I appreciate that members of the Ulster Unionist party and the wider Unionist community who have supported the agreement all along believe that they have been placed unfairly in a very difficult position. I believe that they have. I believe that they are right to think that. Most people in Northern Ireland with an ounce of common sense believe that, too, but I ask them again coolly to assess—even at this point of difficulty—where their deepest interests lie. Suspension by freezing the institutions will also, I am afraid, freeze our hope of ever resolving this issue.
I want to sound a note of caution. To me, suspension means just that, and no feather-bedding. When we are all suspended, if we are, who will remain key players—the key players? Who will come to the doors of the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the President? Not the ex-Deputy First Minister and, after a short time, not the ex-First Minister nor any Member of the House. I offer one guess, and they will not be knocking—they will be invited. Whatever the context, this issue has to be resolved. Whether we like it or not, George Mitchell was right in his review and Patrick Mayhew was right when he said the same thing in the House: decommissioning is a voluntary act and will only be done voluntarily. That is the harsh reality that we all have to live with, but it is a fact. Ultimately, in a political vacuum, those who carry the guns carry with them the type of influence that politics and politicians do not have.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I want to extract some additional wisdom from him before he finishes his speech. Can the Government do anything to give additional impetus to the decommissioning process, bearing in mind that his constituency contains many of those who are most eloquent about their deficiencies in facilitating it, or is there nothing we can do to move it on?

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that pertinent question, which I admit is difficult to answer. Let me answer in these terms: the last thing I would do is let those who hold the arms off the hook. They are under pressure, but please do not overestimate the power of public opinion here, in Ireland or abroad. It swings like a pendulum. Why are they under pressure? Because there is a General de Chastelain, an international decommissioning body and pressure to have this issue dealt with. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Don't throw away that card."
A second answer is that even the IRA thesis and the Sinn Fein thesis is that only in the full workings of the institutions will the voluntary act of decommissioning be made. If we take away the workings of those institutions, do we not substantially leave them with the main plank of their argument? I do not want to see those who hold arms having the freedom to move outside of either the political process or the requirement to deal with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may recall that it is 30 years since a group of younger

Labour MPs went to see him in Northern Ireland, long before he became an MP. Is he speaking for most of his serious constituents in what he says?

Mr. Mallon: I have no doubt that I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority of people who would be termed "nationalists" within the island of Ireland. I am not speaking on behalf of those within the republican movement who somehow or other see merit in holding illegal arms, nor do I wish to speak on their behalf. But I suggest I am speaking on behalf of some republicans, perhaps many, who want this issue resolved as much as we do, and have not the capacity to do it.
I appreciate the extraordinary difficulties that we all face in the current situation. I know that the Secretary of State and all hon. Members are acting in good faith, confronted as we are with a terrible dilemma. I appreciate the work which has been done by the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this issue, and which will continue to be done. We should all think very carefully, and be very honest with ourselves, when we look at the issue of suspension. I would also urge the republican leadership to take the initiative, by allowing General de Chastelain to report meaningful progress to resolve this crisis. We all share a collective responsibility for doing so, but they hold the key.
I should like to pose one or two questions to the Secretary of State so that I may be given information in his winding-up speech. The answers are not clear from the legislation itself—nor could I be clear about the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State that are not in the legislation.
The first question concerns the north-south implementation bodies. Has a treaty been negotiated with the Irish Government regarding them? If so, may we be informed of the nature of that treaty? Could it be made available to Members of this House and Members of the Assembly?
My second question is posed without any rancour, because I agree with the Secretary of State that publishing the de Chastelain report as of now would not be the most beneficial thing to do. Obviously, it is deficient. My question has three parts. Is default, in relation to decommissioning, default of the terms of the Good Friday agreement, default of an Ulster Unionist party deadline, or default of the terms of the Mitchell review? The answer might be the first, second or third, but if we had it, we would at least be clear where the default lies, if there is default definable—and I mean "definable".
How will any review subsequent to suspension be structured? By whom will it be chaired? Will it be chaired by the two Governments? Will it be chaired by one Government? Its structure and how it is handled will be crucially important, because we cannot—and I will not on behalf of our party—have the same type of circumstances as we had in the last review. I have spoken to the Secretary of State privately about that, and will do so again.
The remit of General de Chastelain's commission ends on 22 May this year. Will it be extended? Will he and the other commissioners agree to remain? That is a crucial question for all of us. Or does the Secretary of State envisage another agency—any agency other than the international commission—to carry out this work? Those questions go to the heart of the problem.


I finish with a salutary reminder to all of us. The document that I hold in my hand is the Good Friday agreement. Let nothing that we do in this House deviate from it or damage it. Let it not be played with—before a review, during a review or after a review—because playing with it would mean that we were playing not just with the present but with the welfare of the future.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The peace process was never going to be easy—we all knew that—so, although disappointing, it is not all that surprising that we are here again discussing the matter today. One thing that has defined the last two years in Northern Ireland's history is the regularity with which core issues have been brought forward and had to be faced, sometimes for the first time.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said that optimism turns to despair. I have a slightly different view. I think that, in Northern Ireland, optimism turns to frustration, because if Northern Ireland has one quality in abundance it is passion, energy and enthusiasm. The challenge now is to make sure that what we are discussing today does not convert that passion into something that has a negative impact on the process as a whole. Both the challenge and the reward of the process are that it has forced us to focus on key problems that have been around for decades—or even centuries in some cases.
Decommissioning is the issue on the agenda, but I ask the House to recall the context. We have had similar very heated debates about relations between the north and the south of the island of Ireland, relations between Dublin and Westminster, the status of Northern Ireland in the UK, prisoner releases and, indeed, the use of violence itself. It is not new for us to have these tremendously challenging impasses, nor is it new for us to find a way forward.
In that context, we need to recognise that this does not need to be an insuperable barrier. Recent statements from those speaking for the IRA would indicate that the ceasefire is intact and robust, and is set to remain so, despite the horrendous actions of some dissident hardliners in recent days.
The process of peace continues. This is a vital element in any assessment of where we must go from here. As we have seen many times before, it takes some pretty tough talking to make progress at times like this. If there is one thing that hon. Members and Ministers have learned, it is that one cannot bluff Northern Ireland politicians; one must say what one means and do what one says. Sometimes when there has been an element of brinkmanship, the House has come off worse. That is why we are debating the Bill today.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently been enthusiastic and, I hope, constructive supporters of the Good Friday agreement. We have worked in a co-operative, cross-party way both here and in Northern Ireland to try to achieve its full implementation. As I told the House in November, I have considered it a great honour to be here at this time, as power has been devolved to the Province. It is also very saddening that, only 10 weeks later, we are in the Chamber again—this time to see the making of decisions that effectively suspend the devolved institution. This also shows that there can be no doubt of the importance of decommissioning and that,

as we approach the second anniversary of the Good Friday agreement referendum, the problem will have to be resolved. I agree with something that the Secretary of State said earlier: that this is an elegant solution to the political challenges facing Northern Ireland. The elegant solution, however, can work only if we get past a very inelegant and almost intractable problem.
Throughout the peace process, the Liberal Democrats have never accepted that the process of decommissioning should be a precondition for anything else. I take issue with something said by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who is not present now. He said that we would be much further down the track had we listened to his views on the link between prisoner releases and decommissioning. He is entitled to that opinion, as is his party, but I do not agree. I feel that linking releases with decommissioning constitutes a renegotiation of the Good Friday agreement.
That point is debatable. It is not primarily a point of principle; it is a question of looking at the Good Friday agreement and establishing the facts. It would not be helpful to debate the point at this stage. We must move forward and establish that there is no link, and that we should view decommissioning in the context of the promises made in the Good Friday agreement and of the 22 May deadline.
Let me turn to a much more important issue. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) described his own problem very lucidly. It seems to me that the strong perception of the Unionists is that they jump first and they jump far, and at this point they need something back. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann certainly feels that he needs something back. He has taken his party on an awesome strategic journey, way beyond what I thought possible a couple of years ago. However, as all Members know, one of the basic rules of politics is that it is possible to go only so far: one can build a bridge only so far across a river before the whole thing is in danger of collapsing into the water. That is one reason why it is important for the Unionists to see the bridge being extended further from the other side of the river.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) rightly said that huge steps had been taken by the republican movement. We now see a gap in the middle—a gap that I would call decommissioning. That, however, does not detract from the fact that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has said, in effect, "I really cannot go any further until we see a profound and substantial breakthrough on decommissioning".
The problem is that, at this stage, people are not confident that decommissioning will take place by 22 May. We need a guarantee that that is the game plan. I do not believe that the guns themselves are as important as the commitment that violence has gone for good. It could be said that the whole debate is less about the decommissioning of guns and bombs than about the decommissioning of an attitude. That is my interpretation, and all sides appear to agree with it. Indeed, all sides seem to agree that the guns and bombs are the vehicle for a resolution of the issue.
On 16 November last year, Gerry Adams issued the following statement:
Sinn Fein accepts that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process".
There are many other examples of republican spokespeople reaffirming their commitment to the decommissioning process. Most importantly, however,


the people of Ireland, north and south, have expressed their desire for decommissioning in their vote and in subsequent statements.
Given that nearly everyone agrees that peace is the way forward, and that the decommissioning of guns and bombs is symbolic of the acceptance of peaceful progress, the question must be "What are we waiting for?" What is the key objection? Notwithstanding all the claims that this or that paramilitary organisation did not personally sign the Good Friday agreement, we need to live in the real world. The connections exist: they have already been described in the House, and we are all well aware of them. We need to acknowledge that many speaking for the paramilitary organisations have accepted in spirit that, sooner or later, the guns must go. If that analysis is correct, we are arguing not about whether to decommission but about when, and about the process that is necessary to achieve that end.
One or two speakers have pointed out that the Good Friday agreement featured no process for decommissioning, and that we should put one in place now. This debate must be about achieving decommissioning within the terms of the Good Friday agreement, which means full decommissioning by 22 May; to say more than that could fairly be called renegotiation. Again, the sticking point is attitude. Unless we see some movement now, people will continue not to feel confident about the achievement of the 22 May deadline.
It has been claimed that there have been eight or 10 weeks for progress to be made. In this regard, however, there has been some movement. My view is slightly different from that of earlier speakers. During the review process, de Chastelain stressed that if decommissioning was to be completed by May, it would need to begin as soon as possible. The IRA appointed an official representative to liaise with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning immediately after devolution, at the beginning of December. Two months later, we would expect that, if actual decommissioning had not occurred, the discussions would be at an advanced stage, but as far as I know they have not gone as far as many of us would like. If we are to pass the Bill, we must be satisfied that it will help not just in raising the issue of decommissioning, but in resolving the problem of decommissioning in the medium term.
Let me return to some important points made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who clearly considers that passing the Bill would be detrimental. He spoke of his fears about the potential ending of devolution and the possibility that, if we suspend the Assembly, it will never return. The community that he represents may share his view. Those people probably genuinely feel that if the institutions stop, they will not start again. Not everyone will feel that, but a proportion will. They fear that the whole devolution process—the whole Good Friday agreement—will have succeeded in repealing articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, but will have achieved nothing of substance for the nationalist and republican communities and their aspirations. They probably fear that it is all about to end.
I remember seeing frightening political developments on the television in about 1974, when I was a kid. I was frightened, without fully understanding the dynamics, because I did not know where Northern Ireland was going,

and I lived there. I was scared for myself, and for my parents. Whether or not we agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, we must respect the fact that people in Northern Ireland have genuine fears. Unless the Government handle those fears sensitively, there may be a political cost, as well as a social cost in the creation of stress and other negative emotions.
We are probably doing the right thing by passing the Bill, but, to me, the crucial import of the speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the Government must not ride roughshod over the concerns expressed in those communities. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider seriously what confidence measures they can take if they decide to revoke the Bill. If they do not take such measures, there may well be a negative repercussion in terms of support for the whole process in some nationalist and republican communities.
We embarked on an important and interesting thought experiment today. Both the right hon. Member for Huntingdon and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh encouraged us to see the situation from the perspective of the republican paramilitaries. In a political sense, we have not done enough of that. We do not have to agree with someone to try to understand their point of view, but we have to understand someone's point of view before we can move to agreements with those people.
Many of the people involved in paramilitary activity are individuals of strong character and tremendous spirit in terms of making hard decisions. Perhaps what we are really asking them to do today is to make a decision in a different way from in the past. It is only human for them to think about the risks of decommissioning and to feel uncomfortable about the symbolism that it involves, but I hope that they will recognise that there is a cost to their communities personally in not decommissioning.
Those people will have worries. We all have worries when we make such decisions, but it is almost as if, at this point in the process, a set of master keys has been passed around the various bodies, organisations and leading politicians in Northern Ireland. Now the master key that must be used is in the hands of those very people—the former terrorists in Northern Ireland. The Unionists have had to unlock many gates and so have the nationalists. Now the key rests in the hands of those republicans. Most worrying, there is no other way to the next stage. We all wait at the gate, unable to move further until that key is turned.
Therefore, my message to the paramilitaries, who no doubt assiduously read our debates in Hansard, is to think about whether they can muster the same courage that they have displayed in other areas of their activities and to do it in a different way. Yes, they will feel fear about what is being called for, but I ask them to do it anyway.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made a very interesting point about where we might be heading in the next few weeks. It was about despair. We can avoid the despair and everything that goes with it if the people who have prompted us to have this debate decide to act courageously. I know that some of these terrorists have genuinely regarded themselves as freedom fighters, as defenders of their communities. I do not have to condone their actions to acknowledge that a number of those people also display those great strengths, but, if they can


see the sense of purpose that led them to those activities and if they can remember why they did it in the first place—I am talking not about the criminals, but about those who would genuinely claim that they were politically motivated—I ask them to have the courage to try a new way. They can make the Bill irrelevant and ensure that it is never enacted, if they act swiftly and provide the sort of guarantees that clearly are needed by members of the Northern Ireland community. In that sense, they can convert themselves from being cold war warriors—an echo of a distant way of doing things in Northern Ireland—to sentinels for a more peaceful future.
I understand why we have got here, but I do not like the Bill and I hope that the Government never have to enact it. I hope that, if they do end up enacting it, they take seriously the sensitivities of the communities that I have described, which are extremely nervous about the measure. Above all, I hope that the Bill is made irrelevant by those cold war warriors finally deciding that it is worth their while to take the sort of risk that everyone has to take as well, and to finish the bridge from where we were to where we will be. I can promise that they will then be regarded as heroes by many people, both in the Chamber and in their communities.

Mr. Tom King: I have a certain deep feeling as I stand here. As someone who, for four years, had responsibility for direct rule in Northern Ireland and had to suspend the previous Assembly, I take no pleasure whatever in contributing to the debate on the Bill. I am under no illusions that what we are being asked to approve tonight is a thoroughly unattractive alternative and that it would be infinitely preferable if, even in the last remaining hours or days, a way could be found in which to meet the legitimate concerns of those who are concerned about decommissioning and to keep the Assembly, which has been so painfully and carefully constructed over all these years—one cannot calculate how many years of work have contributed to where we have got to now. Clearly, it took a major shock to the system before the Government, who, like the previous Government, have worked hard to get an Assembly, introduced such a measure.
We had a not entirely satisfactory exchange with the Secretary of State about the de Chastelain report. Initially, it was suggested that it was not just British property; it was Irish property as well. Subsequently, it emerged that it was jointly agreed not to publish it and that it would not have been helpful.
I do not think there is any great secret in the House about the report. The Secretary of State made the position clear. He asked what the answers were to the three questions: whether, when and by what means there should be decommissioning. I think that his actual words were that there was no certainty, or there was uncertainty, on all those issues. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was concerned about the matter.
The only point that I disagreed with in the speech by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was his suggestion that the remarks of George Mitchell showed the way forward. The remarks of George Mitchell preceded General de Chastelain's second or third report. His third report is clearly the blockbuster because it has raised again all the fears as to whether there is any intention whatever to decommission.
It is not that we have reached 21 months and have been slow starting, but that, at the 21-month point, there is still not even any knowledge about whether there will be any decommissioning at all. That is the gravity of the present situation and the feeling. It comes as no surprise to me.
Some Members may have been at the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on the day that the Downing street declaration was signed. The issue came up in the afternoon. In the general welcome that was given by British and Irish Members on that occasion, I raised the issue of decommissioning. I suppose it was four years ago. Every British Member thought that that was the most obvious and sensible point; every Irish Member thought that it was a thoroughly unhelpful contribution to the debate. One saw then that it was going to be the issue.
Anyone who cares to read the interesting autobiography by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) should read the chapter on Ireland—the exchanges with Albert Reynolds and how, at the last minute before the signing, there were issues about clarity on decommissioning, on which the Irish Government needed some persuasion, but were then persuaded. They should read those chapters and understand how difficult the issue is.
That is the feeling when we listen to some of the exchanges. As I understand the Good Friday agreement, Sinn Fein has undertaken to be a persuader. It is committed to seeking to persuade the IRA on the merits of decommissioning. It is that uncertainty which comes out of quoted comments.
I heard Mr. Gerry Adams, I think three days ago, say, "Who could expect an undefeated army to hand over its weapons?" He is supposed to be the persuader. He is supposed to be the person who has already accepted the argument for decommissioning, yet he appears at this moment to be repeating the arguments of those who do not want decommissioning.
I think that all of us took encouragement when the interlocutor was appointed; the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire claimed that he felt there was progress. He is entitled to feel that. There were a number of meetings. With the greatest respect to General John de Chastelain, whom I know from my work with NATO and other experiences, and for whom I have great respect, one wonders what on earth he has been talking about to a number of people for a very long time because, at the moment, as I understand it, the last report is a nil return. Obviously, that adds to the concerns and uncertainty.
A fairly telling cartoon in The Daily Telegraph today leaves one with a certain sense of understanding. It consists of a picture of the men in balaclavas, who, when there is a cry for clarity, say:
What part of No don't you understand?
Nevertheless, as we are now in that type of situation, it is essential to determine whether we can achieve some movement. If we cannot, absolutely no confidence will be felt by Ulster Unionist party members or by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that movement will come.
We are therefore left with this desperate appeal, but also with a feeling that there has been so much progress. So much of the Good Friday agreement has run ahead of expectations. I do not think that many people in the republican movement expected the speed with which


prisoners have been released. In so many aspects of the process, there has been no suggestion of a breach of faith; if anything, there has been an improvement on what they might have expected. That is what makes the decommissioning issue so disappointing.
I strongly and totally endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on decommissioning. No civilised, democratic country can accept arms dumps around its countryside. Decommissioning is therefore not simply a Unionist or a Conservative party issue. It is not even a solely British issue. I have spoken to Irish Ministers, and—in the fullness of time, away from the bright lights of the current problems—they will not tolerate arms dumps in their country, which is where I think the dumps are principally located. Irish Ministers will not leave the dumps there, to be pinched by the Continuity IRA and other dissident bodies who gain access to them. Recently, there was a report of Semtex being transported by the Continuity IRA, clearly out of a Provisional IRA dump. That is the threat—the warning on the packet—that arms dumps pose to democratic, legitimate government throughout the island of Ireland.
I use the expression "throughout the island of Ireland" because the referendums were one of the constructs of the Good Friday agreement. If one wants to take the most republican, united Ireland position on the decommissioning issue, one could point out that the Irish people have spoken on it. By an overwhelming majority, the Irish people have said what they wish to happen. Therefore, whatever the ambitions and dreams of republicans may be, if they are loyal Irishmen and believe in the right of the Irish people to self-determination, they cannot insist on maintaining weapons and a programme of violence. The Irish people—the people on the island of Ireland—have spoken on the issue in the clearest possible terms.
We are faced again with an Irish situation and with a Bill containing provisions that we hope never to have to implement. However, this is not the first time that that has happened in Northern Ireland affairs. Nevertheless, although we find ourselves here again, our prayer must be that the message of hope gets through. With good will, we wish for the Good Friday agreement to be implemented. We want devolution and real power progressively to be transferred.
I tell those who have served in the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly that, in their early days, devolution was being implemented very impressively. We want that process, and decommissioning, to continue.

Mr. Tony Benn: I hope that the House will listen to me if I argue the case against supporting the Bill. I do not feel able to go into the Lobby to support it today, and I want to tell the House why.
I begin by saying what I said to the Secretary of State when he made his statement last week: I think that the Government's handling of the situation in Northern Ireland has been absolutely brilliant. I have sat here a long time, and I have heard many statements—some of the former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are in the Chamber, but I do not blame them—and I recall all of the obstacles that have been put in the way of progress.
When there was a ceasefire, the reply was, "We can't talk to you because it isn't permanent." When it was permanent, there was a gag on the Sinn Fein leaders, and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) was not allowed to broadcast. There was also prevention of terrorism legislation, but it did not work.
A new Government were elected—I pay a personal tribute to the Prime Minister, the previous Secretary of State, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the current Secretary of State and all the Ministers in his Department—and things began to move, partly because they used correct language. We have been fighting a war with the Irish Republican Army. People never use those words—they say "the IRA", although many people do not even know what that means. We have been fighting a war with the Irish Republican Army.
When the former Secretary of State went to the Maze and spoke about prisoners of war, she was using real language. The release of the prisoners has been the release of prisoners of war that occurs at the end of a war. The result of it was a flowing in of confidence that brought some prospect of success.
If, 10 or 20 years ago, I had been able to say, "I must tell the House that, on the future of Northern Ireland, everyone—the Prime Minister and the House of Commons; the Taoiseach and the Dail; two Nobel prize winners, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume); the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon); two other Members, the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) from Sinn Fein—is agreed: they all want the Good Friday agreement to work", people would not have believed it. That is the real guarantee of progress.
The whole House agrees that we want decommissioning. There is not a single hon. Member who would have any doubt whatever of the need for decommissioning. The question is whether decommissioning is really the obstacle to progress under the Good Friday agreement. Is it or is it not? In the absence of killing, there is a type of peace. However, the matter goes further than the absence of killing, because the desire to use the weapons has gone. I think that that is the best guarantee for the future.
There is a strange alliance between the opponents of the Good Friday agreement on both sides of the argument. Continuity IRA does not like the Good Friday agreement because it does not provide whatever its long-term objective is—the unity of Ireland by force. It does not like it, but neither do many Ulster Unionists like it—they think that it gave Sinn Fein far too much. Therefore, there is a type of coalescence of the rejectionists. They feed on each other.

Mr. Thompson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a vast difference between paramilitaries who are against the Belfast agreement and those of us who are democrats and against the Belfast agreement? We are entitled to be against it, and we do not need to use arms to defeat it.

Mr. Benn: Whatever the difference of method, the objective is identical: the hon. Gentleman and Continuity IRA want to see the Belfast agreement killed. I put it like that not to suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a gun in his pocket—of course not; he has something much more


difficult to deal with: a veto in his pocket to bring the whole Assembly and Executive to a halt. The fact is that those two sides feed on each other, and that the real contemporary political division in Northern Ireland is not between the Unionists and nationalists, but between those who are for peace and the Belfast agreement and those who are against peace.
If Continuity IRA were to drop a bomb, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and his colleagues would say, "There you are—it proves that the Belfast agreement is a failure." If the Executive were to be suspended, Continuity IRA would say, "Yes—that proves it. They would never let us continue." The two feed on each other. My fear about the Bill is that it represents a victory for the rejectionists. I know that it would be a reluctant victory for them, but it would feed both.
The Bill is being considered eight weeks after the new machinery was set up. One would have thought that, if the Government had thought that it might collapse, they would have included a provision in the original legislation, but they did not do so at all. I shall not go over the history of Bills that have been passed in one day, but I can think of quite a few Bills that have been passed in a day that have not exactly been legislative triumphs.
What are we going back to? We have not given the new agreement a chance to succeed, but instead are going back to a system that everyone knows failed. I am not blaming anyone, but, my God, I remember the arguments on various provisions. Partition failed; Stormont failed; internment without trial failed; supergrass trials failed; and Diplock courts, plastic bullets, strip searching and broadcast bans all failed. I am not blaming anyone for trying them, but we have tried all the methods of dealing with terrorism trumpeted by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I was in the Cabinet in 1969 when we sent the troops in. We were told that that would solve the problem. If my view is different now, it is because we have tried direct rule and it failed.
The opponents of the Good Friday agreement like the old system. The hon. Member for West Tyrone says that he has a democratic mandate, but he does not have a mandate for opposing the Good Friday agreement because that was put to the people in a referendum. Those Unionists who used to say that they represented the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, which they did on many issues, do not represent the majority on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I have been in a minority before, so I am not blaming them for being in a minority, but even the reverend gentleman the hon. Member for North Antrim is not a representative of the majority of the people of the north for whom he speaks. In the past, the Unionists proclaimed their loyalty to London and to the British flag, but all that they wanted was British troops to help them when they had trouble in repressing the nationalist community. That settlement has led to years of violence.
What alternatives were open to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet? What would have happened if we had not suspended the Executive when the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann resigned? Would the Executive and Assembly necessarily have been brought down simply by his decision to go? People resign; it is not uncommon in politics. Usually, they are replaced. Sometimes deputies succeed their leaders. I am not saying that that would have happened in Northern Ireland, but it is not unknown. I do not believe that it is in the power of

the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to bring down the Belfast agreement by resigning to satisfy a difficult Unionist council, because the people of Northern Ireland want the agreement.

Mr. Thompson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He may represent a majority of the population on a religious or historical basis, but he does not represent the majority on the agreement. If the First Minister had resigned to keep in tune with his party—that still happens occasionally, although not very often these days—he would have lost touch with the people whom he represented. I do not think for a moment that we shall go back to the violence of the past, because so much has been achieved through the desire to make the agreement work, but there will be a damaging sullen atmosphere.
One issue made up my mind on whether I could vote for the Bill. Having set up an elective mechanism to produce an Assembly, the Government are now saying that if one of the leaders of the Assembly resigns they will destroy the whole democracy. None of us has the automatic right to be in Parliament or the Assembly, but the people who elected us have the right to have somebody here. Usually, if people resign from an Assembly there is a by-election. If the whole Assembly resigned in a huff, there would be a general election. For the Government to threaten to take away the votes of Unionists because the IRA will not submit weapons is saying, "We banned your bullets and now we'll ban your ballots. If they won't give up their bullets, we'll take away your ballots." That is not a proposal that a democratic House can endorse.
I find it hard enough that we do not let the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Mid-Ulster sit here unless they swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. We expect them to deny their political history and faith to sit on the green Benches and then we lecture them on democracy. Now we are saying that if they cannot get on with the Assembly, we will cancel the whole thing. The Government can suspend it, then bring it back, then suspend it again—and so on for ever. We are being asked to pass permanent suspensory legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh will admit that the suspension could be lifted and reimposed indefinitely.
Democracy is being put in the hands of the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is a very good Secretary of State and I am not saying anything against him, but I do not believe that the House should accept legislation on that basis. It is an error of judgment that I cannot support—I wish that I could. Even if the Bill goes through—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Benn: I am on my last sentence, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to prolong my speech that is always welcome.

Mr. Ross: I have in my hand a copy of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman supported in the House. Section 16(7) allows


for the possibility of the First Minister bringing down the whole structure. Why did the right hon. Gentleman vote for that if he does not agree with it?

Mr. Benn: If that Act was effective, we would not need the Bill. I am not a lawyer and I would not dream of embarking on a dispute with one, because I would be out of my depth.
A nation that pretends to teach the Irish about democracy will not be believed if its first action is to take away the new democracy. It would be better if we gave matters a little longer to develop. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who got a Nobel prize for his work for peace, would not then be so ready to resign his position while we are still within the time scale allowed for decommissioning, even though it has not occurred yet. The real hope lies in the desire of the people of Northern Ireland to build a better future.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not misunderstand me if I find myself in the invidious position of having to defend his Front Bench against some of the allegations that he has just made. It is not a job that comes naturally to me. To talk about banning bullets and banning ballots is to misrepresent the Bill. To accuse the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) of trying to destroy the democratic process is not remotely connected with the serious issues that we have been considering since 3.30 pm. Like everyone else who has spoken, I regret the need for the debate. I share the Secretary of State's analysis of the urgency of introducing the Bill. I do not want to rehearse history and old tit-for-tat arguments. We have had a little of that, but not much.
Bearing it in mind that we are going to have a review, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the agreement to inform the future. The House knows that I have always supported the Belfast agreement from the day that it was signed. That has also been the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), representing the Opposition officially, although it has not always been the view of all my hon. Friends. I share the importance that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) attaches to the agreement.
The agreement was hugely welcomed when it was signed, but it always had a potential defect at its heart. That defect has best been summed up by those commentators who have referred to its creative ambiguity. That was never more evident than on decommissioning. There were those who said that creative ambiguity was brilliant because it allowed each party to interpret the difficult parts of the agreement in a way that permitted them to move the argument forward. In that sense it created momentum. Others said that that creative ambiguity was potentially lethal, because it formed the basis for criticism. For the second time in my speech, I am not going to criticise the Government.
The Government were in an extremely difficult position, as were the other parties to the agreement. They had only two choices. They could try in advance, in a political vacuum, to agree every nut and bolt. The reality

is they would never have succeeded and there would have been no agreement. The other choice was an element of creative ambiguity, to allow matters to move forward to create a degree of political momentum—hoping that would be sufficient to get the various parties over the really big hurdles that everyone understood had to be jumped. If the clock could be turned back and we were sitting on the Government Benches, we would probably have taken the same view as this Government. The downside is that the momentum might deal with the easier issues but not be sufficient to deal with the really hard issue and leave it isolated. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
We have dealt, in some anguish, with a number of issues, yet 10 years ago that might have been thought inconceivable—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was right on that point—but we are still left with decommissioning. It has been made more difficult by the creative ambiguity of the relationship between the paramilitaries and the political parties that purport to speak for them. It was in everyone's interest to create the impression, and be willing to believe, that the politicians were speaking authoritatively for the paramilitaries. We are discovering that is not entirely true.
Only two judgments can be passed. One is that a genuine debate is going on that has not been concluded; the other is that certain politicians deliberately and maliciously pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else. I have never had the opportunity to discuss those matters with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), so I have not had the opportunity to form a personal judgment. I surprise myself slightly by saying that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe that he does want change in a peaceful, democratic direction. I do not believe that is true of all his associates and I do not believe that that is true of all the IRA—if it were, we would not need this debate.
I can understand another problem for the leadership of Sinn Fein and the IRA. The history of Ireland is replete with examples of republican movements that have split to the enormous detriment—as they would see it—of the republican cause and have consequently resulted in a good deal of bloodshed to boot. The hon. Member for Belfast, West and others do not have to look further back than 1969 and the traumas of their taking over from the Official IRA. When they look back and then to the future, I can understand the importance they attach to not splitting the movement.
Perhaps the most important message of the referendums on the self-determination of the Irish people of which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke, is not that they represented a great agreement, but that the broad mass of sensible people in the island of Ireland were willing to contemplate splits in both the Unionist and nationalist republican movements to build a better future.
There have been splits in the Unionist community; there have not been any overtly evident splits thus far in the nationalist republican movements. It may be that the greatest leadership that can be provided is to contemplate the need to split on both sides, to allow the mass of the people to move forward. That challenge has already been faced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. The House can legitimately ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West when he will face up to a similar challenge.
The bomb on Sunday was an evil act. I choose to believe that it was more—that those in the republican movement were saying to the hon. Gentleman, "Careful. If you split the movement, you will get more of this." It will take great political courage to put the interests of the people of the island of Ireland ahead of that threat. This House is saying that he and his colleagues must do so.
I pay tribute to the Taoiseach and his Ministers for their continuing hard work. Mr. Ahern said at the weekend that clarity is really needed. That is not what I think. We have clarity but we have no decommissioning. We need product. That will be difficult to deliver because it is hard for people not to feel let down by the new revelations in the de Chastelain report. It is hard for the Unionists not to feel that they have given, but have not received, commensurately in return. It is already hard to avoid recrimination and the instinct of people on all sides to use the coming review to start a new shopping list of demands.
Recrimination will make a difficult review process even harder. For that reason if no other, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and I part company on that issue. The sooner we are into that review, choke off recrimination and engage again in the constructive dialogue necessary to get devolution and decommissioning running in parallel—as George Mitchell said they should—the better. The fact that the guns are silent is not an adequate substitute for decommissioning. In the absence of any constructive alternative from Sinn Fein or the IRA or both—if such an alternative exists—I support the Bill. Not as an end in itself but as a necessary means to a better end.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: This has been a bleak and dismal debate. That is not surprising because, in a few days, we may see the dismantling or suspension of political devolution in Northern Ireland. I am saddened but not surprised by the powerful but pessimistic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I can well understand his sadness and anger over the bleak prospect of the suspension of the remarkable institutions created by the agreement—the Executive, the Assembly, the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council. The last was debated the other day in the Scottish Parliament and every speaker supported it, with some arguing that it should have a Parliamentary Assembly.
At the weekend, I was asked by a group of young constituents whether the Northern Ireland Assembly was anything like our Scottish Parliament. Was it akin to the Scottish Executive? I ought to be careful here, because I recently criticised Scottish National party Members for being day-trippers here. However, I told my constituents that I had a day trip to Stormont last week. I saw the farmers' lobby, with 2,000 to 3,000 farmers being addressed by Members of the Legislative Assembly. I think I am right in saying that the motion seeking help for the farming industry was moved by an MLA by the name of Paisley, and the motion was supported by every party in the Assembly.
I met a number of Ministers and talked to them about their work—Mark Durkan, Michael McGimpsey and Mr. McGuinness. I spoke to many Back Benchers, and I had the good fortune—some might say the misfortune—to bump into the hon. Member for North Antrim

(Rev. Ian Paisley). In a comradely way, with his arm draped over my shoulder, he gave me an impromptu lecture on the architecture of Stormont. He has two vocations—preaching and politics. He will never pursue a career as a lecturer in 20th century architecture. It was for me—someone familiar with the Scottish Parliament—a remarkable day out.
Later, there was a debate on disruption in schools. There was an absence of good will among Democratic Unionist party Members and the Minister of Education. I know also that the Health Minister, Barbara de Brun, has not won friends in some quarters as a result of her decision concerning a certain maternity facility. I genuinely believe that we must give every encouragement to that Assembly, the Executive and the other bodies.
I have sympathy with those who believe that the Bill is not helpful to the decommissioning process. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked, what will happen when suspension takes place? It would be a tragedy if the suspension were to last for a year or more, but there is a danger of that. When are Ministers to meet their counterparts in the Irish Government?
My question to the Secretary of State was voiced by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also—who will conduct the review? It is worth thinking that the review be conducted jointly by the Secretary of State and his counterpart in Dublin. I have argued for a definitive timetable for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, and I have been supported by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in that. I am concerned that there might be a danger of a readjustment of the 22 May deadline. Is that a possibility, or a probability? That is worrying, but I suspect that it will come about.
The two Governments must work closely together on the review. If the period of suspension is inflicted on the institutions and the people of Northern Ireland, it should be as short as humanly possible, and the review must be urgent. I have serious concerns about the Bill, and I share some of the reservations voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). However, I have sympathy for the Government, and for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) concerning the difficulties that he faces. It is wrong to offer a simplistic analysis of his difficulties.
I took note of today's editions of the Irish Times and the Irish Independent. The latter said:
Suspension is a bleak prospect, but the alternative is worse.
I have some sympathy with the approach adopted by those newspapers.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament long committed to a federal structure for this country and to genuine political devolution, I—unlike some hon. Members—regularly visit Northern Ireland, although I have never lived there. I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that devolution is far better for all concerned than direct rule.

Mr. Thompson: indicated dissent.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman and I are in profound disagreement on the subject of devolution. It is better that we have genuine subsidiarity than direct rule. My sincere hope is that if we are faced with a period of suspension, it is of a short duration and that the review


is conducted realistically, sensibly and compassionately, taking the interests of the smaller parties—as well as the larger parties—into consideration.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I regret that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in the House, but I still have to say that he should get his facts right. I happen to speak for 192,000 people. I fought my election on this very issue and I topped the poll, so I speak with a certain amount of authority. I, at least, am a democrat. I tell the people what I believe in, and I go to the people on the issues.
I and the people of Northern Ireland get frustrated when we are told that the people of Northern Ireland are overwhelmingly for the agreement. The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag today when he said what would happen if there were an election in five weeks' time. What about all the talk about the referendum, in which everyone was for the agreement? He said that, in five weeks' time, it would all disappear down a black hole. How can he say that all the people from all sections of the community want the agreement, and then say that we must keep them from having an election? Any structure of government that cannot stand up to the results of an election cannot be a proper democratic structure.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) should consider this, too. Would he like to belong to a House that could be swept away because of a change in the voting pattern of the people? We need a solid building, and we do not have one. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is appealing to Mr. McGuinness to split his party. If he splits his party, would that help? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) did not want to split his party—he wanted to hold it together—but he departed from his election pledges.
People in Northern Ireland may be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom, but they expect election pledges to be kept. If they are not kept, the people deal with that at the next election. The right hon. Gentleman often said that he would not join an Executive without decommissioning, and that he would not sit down with the IRA and Sinn Fein until there was decommissioning. Eventually, he did the very things he said he would not do. Have not the people a right to take him to task in those circumstances? His own party are doing so, and they are democrats. They are entitled to do so.
We heard the Secretary of State today praise the glories of the agreement. Some of his claims that everyone is enjoying the current situation are far-fetched. Where does he live? He should go and ask the victims of terrorists whether they are enjoying the so-called agreement, when they see the person who murdered their nearest and dearest walking in the street, or past their house, or when they are doing their shopping. Is there any joy for them? There is no joy for the victims of terrorism and those who mourn their loved ones. Little has been said about the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Front Benchers tonight, but the guillotine hangs over the RUC.
We talk about the arguments over decommissioning, but what Mr. Adams thinks about decommissioning and what the majority of right hon. and hon. Members think

about it are not the same. IRA/Sinn Fein believes that the guns should be taken from every soldier, every policeman and all the individuals who have personal weapons because the police think that they are in danger of being shot. IRA/Sinn Fein is not talking only about the decommissioning of illegal arms but about the prevention of the holding of all arms.
The Secretary of State then tells us that it would not be justified to demand that the terrorists hand in their weapons, because they must do so mutually. They must come to a voluntary arrangement. Well, the House and the Prime Minister did not say that after the killing of the children at the school in Scotland. They did not tell people who had held arms for many years and only used them for sport that they could voluntarily hand in their arms. They were commanded to hand them in and they were faced with imprisonment and heavy fines if they did not do so. Why should they be treated in that way while terrorists, whose hands are dripping with the blood of the innocent victims of their crimes, are not dealt with similarly? It is said that that is not possible, but it has never been tried.
All the programmes that have failed were thought up by Governments without any consideration for the people of Northern Ireland. How many times have I said that the House will reap what it sows? That is what is happening tonight, because of a flawed agreement that could not work. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) resigned. His resignation was indicated from the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State, but then it was discovered that if the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh came back he would not get cross-community support. It was then discovered that he had not resigned.
We are having this debate tonight because the Secretary of State said that, in his opinion, there was no way for the First Minister and his deputy to be re-elected in a new Assembly. Why should they be re-elected? If the Assembly had lost confidence in them, it should have the right to say no to them.

Mr. Mallon: I wish to make it clear for the umpteenth time, first, that I did resign; secondly, that I never said that I did otherwise; and thirdly, that I stand by everything I did, because I did it for a reason and I am pleased to say it was successful.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I never said that the hon. Gentleman did not resign, and he knows that. It was a resignation, but the point is that people cannot say, "This is the agreement", and then, when it no longer suits them, say, "This is not the agreement." The agreement has not been abided by: it has been departed from.
The matter before the House is serious, because upon it depends the peace and quiet of the minds and hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. They know that the IRA have the best weapons of any terrorists in the western world. The House knows what the IRA did at Canary Wharf. The records in the Library show how much compensation was paid after that bomb. It is nearly as much as the total compensation paid out in the whole of Northern Ireland in all the years of violence. Some people in Northern Ireland say that the trouble is that the Government are afraid of the IRA starting up again in this part of the United Kingdom. The Government are being bullied and blackmailed by that threat.
All I can say is that there is no way forward in the agreement as it stands, but if we are to have a review I want to know what sort of a review it will be. Will we have a narrow review or a proper review? Who will participate in the review—the Members of the Assembly or the members of parties who have representatives in this House or in the Assembly? Who will sit at the table? Who will advise as to what should happen as a result of the review? Who will preside at the meetings?
I have been at every conference but one that the British Government have ever convened on the issue, and we have discovered that the two Governments seem to think that they are there to push elected representatives in the direction they want them to go. We have all to go back to the electorate, and if the Governments want to carry the country, they must carry the representatives who have their people behind them. People cannot be pushed down an undemocratic path.
I saw the writing on the wall written by the Prime Minister, who told us that there would be no men in the Executive who belonged to lawless organisations. He told us that decommissioning would start and that no one would be let out of prison until it did. That is what people voted for in the referendum, but it did not happen. The people voted on promises, and they now say no. I have met hundreds of people who have told me that they voted yes, but that they would vote no today.
There are not many yes voters to be found who say that they want to maintain the agreement. We need only look at the demonstrations on the issue to know how the land lies. I tell the House: if we pull the Assembly down and have a review, let it be a real review and let us face up to the issues realistically and practically, and not be like Mr. Mitchell, sweeping them under the table so that they rise another day to haunt us.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Not for the first time, I find myself at the Dispatch Box when little more needs to be said and, frankly, there is little time in which to say it. Equally, not for the first time, I find myself particularly impressed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
The question has been put to me: what does it matter if they have guns, ammunition and explosives if they do not use them? That is a seductive, but shallow, question. It could be rephrased, "Is it okay if one half of the political process agrees to observe the law and the other half does not?" Adopting the idiom of the geometers of classical times—that is, reductio ad absurdum, or taking an argument to the limits of absurdity—how would it be if we acquiesced in the proposition that Conservative Members could be armed with guns, ammunition and explosives but the Labour Government could not, and the Government said, "That's okay; they haven't used them much recently." We would not fail to recognise that absurdity.
It is the same question in Northern Ireland. Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone are as much part of the United Kingdom as Warwickshire, Yorkshire, Aberdeenshire, Powys or Devon. Although Northern Ireland is historically and culturally different, the fact is that we do not allow armed people to participate in the running of our affairs in this kingdom, nor should we.
The Secretary of State said earlier in the debate that not merely was he taking power to resume direct rule in the absence of decommissioning, but that he felt that less damage would be done if he moved promptly than if he did not. We agree.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I should like to respond to one of the points made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The hon. Gentleman accurately pointed out that, in the previous European elections in Northern Ireland, he topped the poll. He went on, rather modestly, to equate his position in the poll on that occasion with the position that he takes on the Good Friday agreement. It was a big vote, but it was a big vote for a big character, and did not necessarily reflect overall agreement for the hon. Gentleman's position. Events will prove me right or they will prove him right, but I think that he was unduly modest about his position in the poll.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield approaches many issues from the position of a democrat. I appreciate that he has a long record as a parliamentarian of viewing issues through the eyes of a democrat. That is perfectly reasonable; in fact, it is a very principled position. He went on to talk about how the Good Friday agreement, the elections to the Assembly and so on, were sacrosanct because of democratic considerations, and that, if anything was to be changed it should, de facto, be done by an election. However, my right hon. Friend overlooked the fact that all the arrangements—the Executive, the north-south bodies, the Assembly itself as well as decommissioning and many of the other issues that form part of the Good Friday agreement—are interlocking. They are interdependent. It is in some respects like a house of cards, although rather more robust. Take away one and the rest no longer make any sense and collapse. There are those who would like to see it collapse, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend is one. However, he needs to understand that the issues are interlocking and interdependent. Therefore, it is not enough to view the Assembly as a body that can be sustained only by further democratic endorsement. That is an over-simplification of the arrangements.

Mr. John McDonnell: If we are relying on the Belfast agreement as part of the process of interlocking authority, what authority is in the Belfast agreement for the suspension of the Assembly? There is none.

Mr. Howarth: I will cover that point in my due course, and no doubt my hon. Friend will listen with care.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in a speech that was full of wisdom and insight, was right to say that this was a Bill that most of us in the House, whether Government or Opposition Members, and the majority of people in Ireland, both north and south, hoped would never be needed. It is, however, the only way of sustaining the potential of devolution. The situation has, in the past few weeks, started to blossom into a real and meaningful political project, one that is uniquely suited to the conditions and history of events in Northern Ireland.
It serves no purpose to debate the actual decommissioning obligations under the Good Friday agreement or, for that matter, any comments that may have come out of Senator Mitchell's review. The truth is, as the right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), among others, have rightly said, decommissioning, trust and devolution go hand in hand. For one section of the community, trust is inevitably linked not only to the silence of the guns but to their absence.
Given the continuing difficulties in achieving progress on decommissioning, there are three options, as we see it. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield suggested, we could have stood to one side and allowed the Assembly and Executive to collapse. For, as sure as night follows day, we would have reached that position sooner rather than later. The second option would have been, by some means, to enable the exclusion of those parties which were considered to be in breach of, or in default of, the obligations to decommission. I do not think that that would have worked either. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) explained eloquently why many delicate relationships exist in the Good Friday agreement and the arrangements that followed it.
That leaves us with the final option—to suspend. We hope that that will lead eventually—sooner rather than later—to progress on decommissioning. By extension, it will enable the political process that is under way to start again. This last option, as my right hon. Friend said, leaves all the parties in a position in which the issues can be debated. There will be a review process and, once the two Governments decide what form that should take, we can then get on with it.
Given that we, our close colleagues in the Irish Government, the pro-agreement parties and most of the Members of this House, remain of the view that the Good Friday agreement is the best way of making progress, any option other than suspension—we all hope that it will be a temporary suspension—would have been counter to the spirit of the agreement. No one is arguing that it was pre-figured in some way in the agreement. That is not the case. This is the best way that we can find to preserve the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. We did not want the Bill, but it represents the best available option.
I hope that the House will send a clear signal tonight that the Good Friday agreement is still in place. Overwhelmingly, we want it to work. On the Government's behalf, I thank both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for making it clear that they support us, and I praise all those parties in Northern Ireland who have taken their courage in their hands to move forward on implementing the agreement.
The agreement remains in place, and we all—nearly all—want it to work. Giving discretion—indeed, power—to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State demonstrates our support for the agreement. The most important thing that the House can do tonight is to show, by giving my right hon. Friend that power, that we still believe that the Good Friday agreement can be made to work. During the period of suspension, if it happens—we hope that it will not—there will be an opportunity for those who must take action to take that action. Only then can we achieve agreement and get the institutions back on track. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want.
I attended an event recently with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and others—

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question, That the Bill be read a Second time—

The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 11.

Division No. 65]
[7.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coaker, Vernon


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Austin, John
Coleman, Iain


Ballard, Jackie
Colman, Tony


Banks, Tony
Cooper, Yvette


Barnes, Harry
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Cotter, Brian


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beggs, Roy
Cummings, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bercow, John
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Berry, Roger
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Best, Harold
Darvill, Keith


Betts, Clive
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blunt, Crispin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Boswell, Tim



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brake, Tom
Dobbin, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Edwards, Huw


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Burgon, Colin
Feam, Ronnie


Burns, Simon
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzsimons, Loma


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flight, Howard


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Flint, Caroline



Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Casale, Roger
Fraser, Christopher


Caton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria


Cawsey, Ian
Galbraith, Sam


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gerrard, Neil



Gilroy, Mrs Linda






Godman, Dr Norman A
Livsey, Richard


Godsiff, Roger
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Goggins, Paul
Loughton, Tim


Golding, Mrs Llin
Love, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McAvoy, Thomas


Greenway, John
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grocott, Bruce
McFall, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hain, Peter
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Hanson, David
McWalter, Tony


Harvey, Nick
McWilliam, John


Hawkins, Nick
Madel, Sir David


Hayes, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hill, Keith
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Hinchliffe, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Hoey, Kate
Maxton, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Meale, Alan


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Moore, Michael


Howells, Dr Kim
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hunter, Andrew



Hurst, Alan
Mountford, Kali


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Norris, Dan


Jamieson, David
Oaten, Mark


Jenkin, Bernard
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Öpik, Lembit



Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Paterson, Owen



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pollard, Kerry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pond, Chris


Kirkwood, Archy
Pound, Stephen


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lansley, Andrew
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Laxton, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rammell, Bill


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)





Rendel, David
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Robathan, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Robertson, Laurence
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Syms, Robert


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Thompson, William


Ruddock, Joan
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Touhig, Don


St Aubyn, Nick
Trickett, Jon


Salter Martin
Trimble' Rt Hon David


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr .George (NW Norfolk)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sawford Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shaw, Jonathan
Tyler, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Tyler, Andrew


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Cecil


Shipley, Ms Debra
Walley, Ms Joan


Singh, Marsha
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Miss Geraldine> (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan



Whittingdale, John


 Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Willis, Phil


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Audrey


Southworth, Ms Helen
Woodward, Shaun


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony 


Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate, Dr Howard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Greg Pope and


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Tony McNulty.




NOES


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Mallon, Seamus


Corbyn, Jeremy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Etherington, Bill



Galloway, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Michael Connarty and


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. John McDonnell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order [this day].

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State attributable to the Act;

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Postponed proceedings resumed.

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Before we begin, may I make it clear to hon. Members that we are using two separate amendment papers. Amendments tabled yesterday were printed on pages 949 to 951 of the Vote bundle. Amendments tabled today are on a separate paper, which is available in the Vote Office. We are using the version of that paper which includes amendments tabled as at 4.30 pm today.
In addition, copies of a further, later amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), are also available in the Vote Office. The relevant selection list is the one headed "as at 4.30 pm" and is available in the No Lobby.

Clause 1

SUSPENSION OF DEVOLVED GOVERNMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. McDonnell: As we covered much ground on Second Reading, I shall be brief; I hope that we shall be able to speak more generally on Third Reading.
The amendments are simple; they would delete subsections (5) and (6) of the clause. They follow on from the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Second Reading: a concern that, in suspending the Assembly, we would also suspend the other institutions established under the Good Friday agreement. We are concerned because those institutions form part of the mechanisms for creating greater understanding between the different traditions on the island of Ireland and between the Six Counties and the Irish Republic.
The dialogue that was developing as a result of those institutions means that there is a continued commitment to the ceasefire and to the peace process. It is beyond understanding that we should penalise those existing, successful institutions through the measure. We are concerned that in doing so, there is a risk of longevity not only for the suspension of the Assembly but for the suspension of that dialogue.
That is the basis on which I introduce the amendments. The process would not be jeopardised if those existing institutions remained. We have been told of the necessity for the scrapping or suspension of the institutions, because of some interlocking authority that derives from the Good Friday agreement. However, the Bill has no authority

under the agreement; there is no power given to the British Government to suspend those institutions. As that organisational structure has operated effectively, the institutions should be maintained. On that basis, I ask the Committee to accept the amendments.

Mr. Öpik: I want to make a brief contribution to seek clarification. It seems that clause 1 will allow some Committee Chairmen to carry out their functions without their Committees. Clause 1(3) states that no Committee of the Assembly can hold any meetings or conduct any business during suspension, but clause 1(4) suggests that that only the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Statutory Committees will not continue to hold office. That seems to be a little illogical, so I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position and tell us whether the Government need to introduce anything to sort the matter out.

8 pm

Dr. Godman: I shall also be brief, as I, too, seek clarification. Have discussions about the British-Irish Council taken place with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Executive and others involved in the council, which held its inaugural meeting a few weeks ago? I think that another meeting is planned for June of this year. Although I realise that discussions continue all the time with the Irish Government, when were the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Executive and the Welsh Assembly informed of the probability of the suspension of the British-Irish Council?

Mr. George Howarth: I wish to challenge slightly the terminology that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) used when moving the amendment. I am sure that he will appreciate that the term "suspension" is entirely different from the term "scrapped". I do not want to labour that point, but I think my hon. Friend will recognise that it is important to make that distinction.
A fundamental principle of the Good Friday agreement is that all the institutional arrangements are interlocking and interdependent. My hon. Friend acknowledged that, but he took issue with the context in which we have used that argument in the Bill. However, he will know that the concept is set out in the declaration of support at the beginning of the agreement.
If suspension is called, it will inevitably impact on all the institutions. In particular, the agreement recognises that the Assembly and the North-South Ministerial Council are so closely interrelated that the success of each depends on that of the other. When we talk about interdependence and interlocking, that is precisely what we mean.
During any suspension, the Assembly and the Executive will be suspended. All Northern Ireland Ministers will cease to hold office. In practice, that will mean that the North-South Ministerial Council simply will not be able to function in the absence of representation from the Northern Ireland devolved Administration.
As my hon. Friend suggested, clause 1(5) and (6) provide that, during a suspension, the functions conferred on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 cannot be exercised. That means that the Secretary of State cannot nominate people


to take the place of Northern Ireland Ministers on those bodies. It would be frankly inappropriate for him to do so given that the institutions are interdependent.
I realise that my hon. Friend's amendment is designed to preserve some of the good developments that have taken place in the recent past—and we should acknowledge that huge strides have been taken. We have recognised where there is common purpose between Northern Ireland, the Government in southern Ireland and ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made clear, some institutions also involve Scotland, Wales and other parts of the British isles. Clearly, therefore, consultation will be necessary on the implications, and they will rightly take place in the coming period.
However, it would be inappropriate to carry on as if all the institutions were still in place and as if nothing had happened during the period of suspension. I repeat what I said earlier: we hope that the Bill becomes unnecessary, that the institutions carry on and that the Executive and the Assembly will be able to continue. However, if, over the next few days, it becomes clear that that is impossible without everything collapsing under its own momentum, it will sadly be inappropriate for us to carry on as though nothing had happened.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the close working relationship that we have with the Irish Government will continue. On matters on which we clearly have a continuing interest—not least the continued implementation and, if suspension takes place, re-implementation of the Good Friday agreement—that relationship will continue at Government level. I hope that we shall be able to work our way through the problems.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State was opaque on occasions this afternoon. I can understand why the two Governments must have relationships with one another, but will the Minister clarify whether the suspension of ministerial bodies will also include the suspension of implementation bodies, or was I misled when I heard that they will come under Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. Howarth: The powers of the implementation bodies transfer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is for him to decide where it is appropriate for those powers to be used. I emphasise that we consider it inappropriate to carry on as if nothing had happened; that would simply be flying in the face of reality if a suspension were to take place.

Mr. Winnick: I am not aware that the Irish Government in any way dispute what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. The institutions can hardly continue to survive if a suspension of the Executive and Assembly occurs. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm what he has just touched on? If, unfortunately, there is a period of suspension, will he confirm that close ministerial contacts will continue between the two Governments? In view of the circumstances, the contacts in some areas will be even closer than they were before the Good Friday agreement. Everyone on the Opposition Benches should understand that.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which enables me to make the position

absolutely clear. We simply would not have got as far as we have without the close co-operation and understanding of Ministers in the Irish Government, the Taoiseach and of Irish politicians, from various parties and holding various principles. It would be inconceivable that we could continue our work if that relationship did not still exist.
My hon. Friend is right. Contacts will continue to take place at an official level and, over the next few days, they will intensify. They will involve Ministers and they might involve the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. When things are difficult, it is important that relationships are maintained. We can make progress only through those contacts and if we have an understanding of the difficulties that the parties in Northern Ireland face. If we ignore such factors, we will find ourselves running out of road. It is important that we maintain all those relationships.

Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased to hear that the Minister intends to continue to have the closest possible contact with the Irish Government, but I do not understand why he finds it necessary to suspend the workings of the North-South Ministerial Council, when it ought to be possible to continue them by ministerial contact, despite the suspension of other activities.

Mr. Howarth: I have used well-chosen terms to explain why that situation should pertain and, without being disrespectful to my hon. Friend, I think it would be tedious to the Committee if I were to repeat that explanation. This is a delicate situation, and I have made what I thought were sensible remarks about it. If I were to enter into negotiation across the Chamber, that might undermine discussions taking place elsewhere, and I know that my hon. Friend would not want me to do that.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will appreciate that although I realise that they tabled the amendment in a constructive spirit, hoping to maintain a close working relationship between the two Governments, it would in the current circumstances be inappropriate for the amendment to be carried. I hope that they will recognise also that we shall use all other available means to try to work as closely as possible with our Irish counterparts, and that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that the bodies will also be put on hold?

Mr. Howarth: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in his seat when I made my speech, and it would be unnecessary and difficult for me to become involved in a detailed discussion about the matter. There are issues that have still to be discussed. No one has yet agreed to suspend any of the institutions, and we hope that suspension can be avoided. In the Bill we are taking a power, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will exercise if things go wrong over the next few days, to suspend devolved government, and everything that depends on devolution will necessarily cease if devolution does not continue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that a suitable explanation. I repeat my hope that my hon. Friends will feel that it is appropriate to withdraw their amendment.

Mr. McDonnell: Our hopes are that if suspension takes place, it will continue for a short period. We have been


given an assurance that if it continues for a long time, there will be a continuing dialogue between the Governments, and structures to enable the co-operative working relationship that has been established to be maintained. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Howard: I begin my contribution by returning to a matter that was raised earlier. I deplore the fact that we have had to consider the Bill without having available to us the de Chastelain report. The Secretary of State has come to Parliament to ask us to approve this legislation on an emergency basis. The only reason that he has done so is the de Chastelain report. Astonishingly, when one of my hon. Friends made that point earlier, the Secretary of State rebuked him and told him that he ought to be talking about something more significant than the de Chastelain report. In this context there could hardly be anything more significant than the report.
We in the House are not to be shown the report. That is an outrage. The Government proclaim themselves devoted to open government. One could hardly have a more eloquent example of their failure in that respect and of their arrogant contempt for Parliament than their failure to allow us to see the report.

Having looked at "Erskine May", I find that the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Government appears to be clearly in breach of the statement on page 387, which says:
A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other State paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table.
I ask you, Mr. Lord, for a considered ruling on whether the Secretary of State has complied with his obligations.

The Second Deputy Chairman: As far as I am aware, the Secretary of State has neither read nor quoted directly from the report in question, but I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is very important and I will undertake to ensure that it is given further consideration.

Mr. Howard: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Lord. I asked for a considered ruling, rather than an immediate one, because you and Madam Speaker will have carefully to read Hansard from today and last Thursday to find out to what extent the Secretary of State quoted from the report. My impression is that a careful reading of what he said today and on Thursday will disclose that he quoted from the report.
The Secretary of State did not improve matters with the explanation that he gave when we raised the matter earlier today. He appeared to rely on the fact that the report was made to the Irish Government as well as to the UK Government as a reason for not disclosing it. The clear implication was that pressure from the Irish Government

was the reason why the report was not to be made available to the House. I do not know whether the Secretary of State had thought through that justification and its implications, but it seems to me that it has most unfortunate consequences.
There are many areas in which it would be desirable for the UK Government to co-operate closely with the Government of the Irish Republic, and such co-operation would have the enthusiastic support of the House, but if the consequence of that co-operation is that the Irish Government will be able to exercise a veto on the disclosure of information to the House, that will inevitably give hon. Members pause before they support such co-operation in future.
I have no doubt that, when the House was originally told that the de Chastelain report would be submitted jointly to the Irish Government and the UK Government, no one thought that it was a matter of concern. That would have been regarded as an entirely appropriate step, and so far as I am aware, no one in the House registered an objection to that course. Had we known, however, that it meant that the Irish Government would have a veto on whether or not the content of the report could be disclosed to the House, even when the House is being asked to approve emergency legislation on the basis of the report, the attitude of many hon. Members would have been different. That would have been unfortunate.
The explanation that was, in the end, dragged out of the Secretary of State earlier today has unfortunate, far-reaching implications. I hope that he will reflect on those implications when he considers the course that he has taken and the way in which he has kept from the House the contents of that report.

Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. His argument is strengthened if he shares my understanding that the decommissioning commission was established by legislation from this place and is accountable to this place. There was no corresponding legislation in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which reinforces mine. It is a serious argument, on which I hope the Secretary of State will reflect.
I proceed to a more general point on clause 1 stand part. Clause 1 sets out the effects of the suspension of devolution, if and when the Bill comes into force. I support the Bill and share the regret which has been widely expressed that it has become necessary.
When we debated affairs in the Province in July, I posed two questions. If the IRA and other terrorist organisations have indeed given up violence for good—the basic assumption on which the entire peace process rests—why should they need to keep their guns and their bombs? If at some point they will be prepared to give up their guns and their bombs, why not now? I do not believe that there is any answer to those questions, which is why I find it difficult to be optimistic about the process, much though I should like it to succeed.
I shall refer to one aspect of that process, which the Bill directly calls into question. It was touched on earlier, during Second Reading—the release of terrorist prisoners. Many of us found that the most difficult and painful provision in the Belfast agreement. It raises and, indeed, breaches principles that are very dear to us. The provision


impinges directly on my constituents, who would have been victims of the seaside bombing plot in 1984—a plot prevented only by effective action by the police. The release of those responsible for that plot and for terrible deeds of violence which they did commit was a bitter pill to swallow.
We were, however reluctantly, prepared to go along with the provision. In my case at least, the decisive argument was that the prisoners would be the most powerful promoters of the peace. They, we were told, would be the most persuasive advocates within their movements for the abandonment of violence, for the end of terrorism and—an essential part of the process and the agreement—for giving up the guns and the bombs with which such enormous suffering had been inflicted. We were in part persuaded to take that step because the legislation that put the agreement into effect identified with some precision the factors that the Secretary of State must take into account in deciding whether prisoners should be released. Under the existing legislation, one of those factors is the extent to which the organisation to which the prisoners belong is prepared to co-operate in decommissioning.
It is, alas, now clear that our expectations have not been fulfilled, and that calls into question in the most direct way the continuing release of prisoners under the existing legislation.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. Can he confirm that more than 200 prisoners were released under 1995 legislation when he was a member of that Administration?

Mr. Howard: The prisoners were released, but the circumstances were entirely different. What happened on that occasion was not some arbitrary shortening of the sentence, as is provided for under the current legislation. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what happened in Northern Ireland. Is that right?

Dr. Godman: indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: What happened then was that the provisions that existed at that time in Northern Ireland were brought into line with the provisions that existed in England and Wales. There had been a difference between the provisions for remission in Northern Ireland and those that existed in England and Wales, and on that occasion they were made consistent with each other. That was a set of circumstances far removed from those that exist under the current legislation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way. There are those who will find his argument hard to follow, but is it not summed up by what happened in the courts last week, when two people were convicted of murdering a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, and they showed contempt for the judgment, because they know that they will walk out in July?

Mr. Howard: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry to hear that he thinks that my argument will be hard to follow. I thought that the argument that I was putting was simple, clear and easy to follow, but we must all be disabused of our pretensions. However, I agree that the example that he cited illustrates my point.
If, as we were told, the prisoners are the most powerful promoters of the peace, an announcement by the Secretary of State under the existing legislation that the release of those who remain in custody will cease until progress is made on decommissioning would put clear pressure on them to do what we were told they would do—to promote the peace. If they cannot or choose not to influence the process, the original justification for their release will not exist.
Either way, prisoner releases should not continue, and I hope that we will have a clear statement from the Minister this evening to that effect.

Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. My contribution to the clause stand part debate centres on my concern for those who are employed in any of the institutions that may face suspension. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, can he confirm that the interests of those employees—I have no idea how many people there are in the employment of the Assembly or the Executive, for example—will be protected in accordance with their terms and conditions of employment?

Mr. Hunter: As we know, clause 1 lies at the heart of the Bill and provides for the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland. My approach to the Bill is generally supportive, but I have one point of genuine concern, which I hope the Minister can address when he replies.
The House spent tens of hours scrutinising and deliberating on the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and a not inappreciable amount of time considering what became section 30. I do not understand why the Government are introducing the Bill at all. Section 30 of the 1998 Act allows for the exclusion from ministerial office of members of a political party that
is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
Many hon. Members opposite understandably said that they wanted the structures and institutions of devolved Government to continue. The 1998 Act provides for that. I do not understand why the Government are introducing the Bill when they can exclude under existing legislation those who are deemed not to be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.

Mr. Opik: I reiterate the point that I made in the previous short debate on the amendments. Perhaps it was a bit naughty of me to raise the matter then, because I should have waited until the stand part debate.
Clause 1(4) states:
No person is to continue to hold office or be elected, nominated or appointed as a Minister or junior Minister, or as a chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee.
The provision should read, "statutory or standing committee". Will the Minister clarify whether, technically, the Chairs for the Standing Committees on Standards and Privileges, on Procedure, on Audit, on Public Accounts and the Committee of the Centre can continue to carry out their functions when those Committee cannot meet? If the Bill is used, the Minister must be absolutely clear about whether it affects Standing Committees. If it does not, does he intend to include a provision to correct that as the Bill proceeds?

Mr. Eddie McGrady: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) expressed our party's opposition to the Bill and to dismantling a delicate edifice of political institutions, which will be extremely difficult to restore.
I apologise to earlier speakers for my absence, but I have just left what, sadly, may be the last meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I want to stress to the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), that this morning's Order Paper in the Assembly included a motion to exclude Sinn Fein and that it did not receive the necessary number of votes—which is only 30 out of 108—to support it. The Assembly is a cross-party body, and Unionist parties, extreme and moderate, and nationalist parties, extreme and moderate, do not support the exclusion of Sinn Fein at the moment.
That is a lesson to the House about how carefully we handle our delicate political institutions. That is why my party opposes the whole concept of the Bill, the contents of which are mainly embodied in clause 1. We cannot enforce decommissioning by such a measure, which is a slap on the wrists of Northern Ireland politicians. It penalises elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the vast majority of whom are not culpable through failing to decommission. It is therefore important to put on record that the Assembly, no later than a few hours ago, did not believe it proper to exclude representatives of the IRA from their number. In that case, why should this House do it?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Before we consider clause 1 stand part, I express our sympathy to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). All of us have known him for a long time, and we respect his courage in being here today following the recent tragic murder of his niece. I am sure that he has the sympathy of all hon. Members.
I suppose that I am required to declare an interest when considering clause 1. Several hon. Members who have spoken also have an interest. I am a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and a Minister with responsibility for a Department in that Government. I want to speak against what might be perceived as my interest. I have been a convinced devolutionist for a long time. For the past 21 years in the House, I have frequently argued, from both sides of the House, for devolution in Northern Ireland and for decentralisation of powers. I believe without qualification that no matter how well intentioned Ministers who went from Great Britain to Northern Ireland may have been, in the time that they were there they could not have had the same feel for the needs of people in Northern Ireland. Given their number, it was asking a lot of each Minister, or of any human being, to take charge of what would be four Departments under the present system.
I am not against devolution in principle—I support it—but when I read the Belfast agreement I realised that the price that the people of Northern Ireland were being asked to pay for it was too high. The four principal features of the agreement were the release of terrorist prisoners before their due dates, the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the setting up of apparatus that leaned towards a united Ireland—including unaccountable all-Ireland bodies with executive powers—and placing in government those who were still unrepentant and have clear terrorist connections and relationships. To me, that corrupted the democratic process. One might have

expected, in a fair and reasonable world, that somebody holding those views might not have been thought unreasonable, but holding them when the Government hold a contrary view can become very unreasonable.
We have been accused of many things over the past months and years, but we made it clear at the beginning that corrupting the democratic process in such a way had sown the seeds of the agreement's destruction. Day by day, it becomes more apparent that having terrorists in a democratic Government is a contradiction in terms. Sooner or later, the leaders of political parties had to recognise that conflict. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has attempted over and over and over again to put off the evil day, hoping beyond hope that Sinn Fein-IRA would perhaps be prepared to decommission. There were many to advise him that everything they knew about that organisation's behaviour was such that that would not happen. He has learned the hard way in his party and in his constituency, where he can barely walk the streets. That is the reality of life in Northern Ireland.
If the price of devolution was too high, the Government's suspension of the institutions is hardly the appropriate response, which is the proper exclusion of those who are not committed to
exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
The hon. Member for South Down responded in some measure to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). The answer is yes: section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a power allowing the exclusion of political parties if, for one reason or another, they do not measure up to the standards laid down in the Act, but it can be triggered only by a cross-community vote. Indeed, such a proposal can be put before the Assembly only if 30 people are prepared to stand in their places or sign a motion support it. In the Assembly this morning, 29 people were prepared to support that motion, but in the absence of the 30th it was not even debated. Even if it had been, it is abundantly clear from the comments of members of the Social Democratic and Labour party that it would not have received the cross-community support necessary to exclude Sinn Fein-IRA. In those circumstances, it was a weapon that could not be used.
When the 1998 Act was going through Parliament, many of us on this side of the House argued that it was an ineffective weapon that would not be appropriate when the circumstances required it to be so. It would be far better and more honest if the Government said, "If people are not prepared to play by the rules of democracy, out they go until they are prepared to pay the membership fees of this club." Instead, their answer is to suspend everything and democrats will be punished alongside the terrorists. Indeed, it must be said that the central feature of the failure of the agreement to work has been the issue of decommissioning.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the silence of the guns. I suspect that if I had pranced across the Floor, put a Smith and Wesson to his ear and asked him to sit down, he would not have been saying to himself "At least the gun is silent. I needn't worry too much about it." I think he would have sat down, and he would have done it very quickly, because the reality is that if one puts a gun to somebody's head it does not matter whether it is silent. It is always silent before it goes off.
The threat is there, and it is that threat which Sinn Fein-IRA rely on to give them their negotiating strength. It is that threat which they rely on to give them a status well beyond that of political parties in Northern Ireland which have greater electoral strength than they have. It is that strength which ultimately Sinn Fein-IRA recognise is their ace card in any negotiations about the future of Northern Ireland.
Many people talk about Sinn Fein and the IRA being inextricably linked. So they are, but it does not quite indicate the nature of their relationship. Sinn Fein is subservient in that relationship; it does what the IRA tells it to do. The IRA does not follow the leadership or instruction of Sinn Fein, which is the junior partner in that relationship.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said something that I do not think I have heard said before in the House. He referred to the representatives of Sinn Fein in the Assembly in Northern Ireland as the representatives of the IRA, which we all know is so, but I do not think I have heard it said before.

Mr. Robinson: I often look across the Assembly Chamber at the ranks of Sinn Fein. I see among its membership members of the army council of the IRA—present-day members of the army council of the IRA. With the exception of two Members, every one of them has served in the ranks of the IRA. Most of them have gone through the educational process of the prison system. It is very clear that all of them are supporters of the IRA. All of them come under the whip of the IRA, and when it is cracked they jump. No one should get away with the idea that Sinn Fein can lead the IRA by the nose and require it to do one thing or the other. As my friend the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) indicated, the fact that four of the seven members of the IRA army council are also leading Sinn Fein members indicates a close relationship and the fact that there is no division between the views of Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is not that a significant difference from what happened in the past, when at Sinn Fein conferences a messenger came from the army council? There no longer needs to be a messenger from the army council, because it is at the head of the Sinn Fein movement.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, and I do not need to go into the names. We all know the leading members of Sinn Fein who are members of the IRA army council.
The injustice of the clause is that it does not contain the freezing of certain other elements of the Belfast agreement. The Government's argument is that they have suspended a number of the operations under the clause because they believe that institutions should be frozen because they cannot proceed as a result of the IRA's failure to decommission.
The reality is that if there was ever a linkage in the agreement, the clearest was between prison release and the decommissioning of illegal weaponry. Both were intended to be within a two-year time scale. Neither had an absolute starting date set down, but it was very clear that as soon as the Government proceeded helter-skelter to release prisoners it took the pressure off the IRA to

meet its bargain on decommissioning. If the Government simply continue releasing prisoners, it is a win-win situation for the IRA. It will be doing away with Stormont and at the same time continuing to get its prisoners out of jail. It can be disobedient, but be rewarded with the freeing of its prisoners.

Was it a betrayal to which the Secretary of State referred last week? What kind of situation is this, in which those whom the Government believe to be responsible for a betrayal will be rewarded with the release of prisoners, while the democrats will be punished with the removal of institutions? It strikes me as a topsy-turvy, Alice in Wonderland situation. Moreover, the Government have not indicated so far that they are prepared to suspend any action that they may take to implement the Patten recommendations for the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is another plus for the IRA—another reward for not doing what the community would have it do and decommission its weapons.
The Secretary of State should think long and hard about this. Under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, he has powers to stop the release of prisoners; he should exercise those powers.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman recall what was said on Thursday during questions to the Secretary of State on his statement? The right hon. Gentleman said:
We will not be suspending the Good Friday agreement; therefore, we are not going to put into reverse all those gains and all those changes that have flowed from its implementation."—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1325.].
In other words, the Secretary of State was telling the IRA, at the very moment that he was announcing the possibility of suspension, that he would continue to reward it.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an unfortunate message which, no doubt, was picked up by the Provisional IRA.
As the Secretary of State will see, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act expressly states that he has the power to stop the release of prisoners if there is not a clear continuation of the commitment of an organisation to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The Act specifies four areas for the Secretary of State to take into account when judging whether that continuation is taking place, one of which relates to decommissioning. I wonder whether one of the reasons for our not having the report from the decommissioning body is that if the report says that the Provisional IRA has not been complying with the conditions, the 1998 Act requires the Secretary of State to stop any release of terrorist prisoners. It will be interesting to see what happens when the information eventually surfaces—and the Secretary of State will discover that, in Northern Ireland, these things do eventually surface, in one way or another.
I believe that the Secretary of State should have taken the alternative course of excluding those who were not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I believe that he should also have suspended the implementation of the Patten recommendations and acted differently in regard to prison releases. However,


given the limited nature of the Bill, I have no choice but to go for the second-best option that the Government are offering: the suspension of the institutions.

Mr. George Howarth: Along with, I am sure, the rest of the Committee, I join the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in expressing our condolences to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I have already expressed my condolences privately, but I think it would benefit the hon. Gentleman's family to know that we have expressed ours across the board.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that I suppose my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I should declare an interest: if the suspension goes ahead, one or other of us will be doing his job next week, although we do not expect to receive any extra pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) talked about the people who are employed in the institutions. As the Secretary of State and I have said repeatedly, our hope is that the institutions will not need to be suspended, but if they are, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, many of the detailed arrangements will need careful consideration. I assure the Committee that proper regard will be given to the circumstances of people who are employed in any of the bodies. Obviously, we are not at the point where we can give precise details of that, but if suspension goes ahead we will quickly have to turn our attention to my hon. Friend's point.
In an exchange with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) raised a question about the status—in terms of agreements between ourselves and the Irish Government—of the decommissioning commission. As he will be aware, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was established by an international agreement between the British and Irish Governments. That agreement was followed by parallel legislation in both jurisdictions, so it is from that that the relationship in respect of the commission derives. Therefore, when the Secretary of State refers to the report being the joint property of both Governments, it is because of the parallel legislation in both jurisdictions which led to the establishment of the commission.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) raised a point on which I think I can give some reassurance. Subsection (3) makes it clear that no Committee of the Assembly can meet or conduct any business during a suspension. That includes statutory and all other Committees. All Committees will cease to function for the duration of suspension.
Subsection (4) deals with those individuals who hold statutory office under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, just as clause 3 deals with their reappointment in line with the provisions in that Act. The Bill does not address the various non-statutory appointments, such as chairmen of Standing Committees. Nevertheless, they too will cease to exercise any of their functions during a suspension. Their committee cannot meet or conduct any business. The Secretary of State, who, under the Bill, takes responsibility for salaries and allowances, will ensure that they are treated on a par with the chairmen of statutory committees.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe took issue with the Secretary of State's explanation of why he did not feel it was appropriate at this time to publish the General de Chastelain commission's report of a week ago Monday. He went on to discuss precisely what terms the Secretary of State might have used this afternoon. In his observations on the content of General de Chastelain's report, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was summarising what was said.
As regards publication, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has held high office; he was Home Secretary. He knows that, on some occasions, certain issues are highly sensitive and delicately balanced in terms of the relationships between different bodies—in this case, the relationships between ourselves and the Irish Government. I hope that he will accept that it is because of the delicacy of the situation that, at this time, the Secretary of State does not think it appropriate to publish that report. I hope that he will also accept that the Secretary of State has made it clear that, if and when a further report is published, he will undertake to ensure that both are published at the same time.

Mr. Howard: The form of words that the Minister has just used—it was not an explanation; it was simply a form of words—is no more convincing than the very similar form of words used earlier today by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister not recognise that we are here today because of the de Chastelain report? How in those circumstances can he justify not making that report available to the House? When General de Chastelain came forth with a report that contained some relatively good news, the Government were quick to publish it. Surely the Minister should recognise that the Government should be equally quick to publish a report that, most regrettably, contains bad news.

Mr. Howarth: Forgive me, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is engaging in a little bit of sophistry—he knows the precise situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no secret of the fact that we are considering the Bill today because the progress on decommissioning that everyone rightly expected to be made has not been made—[Interruption.] I repeat that insufficient progress has been made.
My right hon. Friend also made it clear that progress is ultimately a matter for General de Chastelain, who will subsequently report on it. However, as I said, at this stage it does no good for us to pore over the entrails of precisely what has happened.
We want decommissioning to occur, so that suspension will never have to be imposed. However, if it is imposed, we want to ensure that we all have confidence—this is about confidence-building—that, at that time, the suspension could be lifted.

Several hon. Members: rose

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then I must make some progress, as we are running short of time.

Dr. Godman: A moment ago, I sought assurances for those who are employed in the institutions. However, what


will happen to the Bills that were presented to the Assembly at the beginning of last week? One was a fisheries Bill, and another was on social work administration. Presumably those will be taken on board by Ministers?

Mr. Howarth: During a suspension, the Assembly would have no powers to pass any legislation. Progress on legislation during a suspension would have to be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State or me. If we decided that passage of the legislation was not appropriate at that time, we would not make progress on it. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of the situation that we are in.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give the House an assurance?

Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then really must move towards a conclusion. He must realise that time is limited.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that the Secretary of State has told us that he will release both the de Chastelain report and the successor to it, will the Minister assure the House that such release would not at any point depend on the agreement of the Government of southern Ireland, and that they do not effectively hold a veto over the release of such a report—which we are now told will precede re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the position as clear as he can. I stand by what he said, and he will stand by what he said.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene—for which he did not have the courtesy to thank me—and he will forgive me if I reply to that intervention in my own way. The situation is precisely as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described it, and the hon. Gentleman should not try playing games to get me to say something different from what my right hon. Friend has said. If he is trying to do that, he will not succeed. We are in a difficult situation. What my right hon. Friend said stands and it is neither useful nor necessary for me to add anything.

9 pm

Clause 1 suspends the operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly for as long as the clause is in force. While it is in force there can be no meetings of the Assembly or any of its committees, nor can any legislation be passed by the Assembly. All Ministers and junior Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive, including the hon. Member for Belfast, East, will cease to hold office, as will the chairmen and deputy chairmen of statutory committees.
The clause also provides that the powers under section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to nominate Ministers to attend the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council cannot be exercised during the suspension. Our intention is to suspend those institutions by means of an international agreement with the Irish Government.

Mr. Robathan: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I was moved to do so by the Minister's tortuous and very unconvincing arguments.
The issues covered by the Bill, particularly clause 1, hang on the de Chastelain report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has made that point particularly well. The Minister failed to explain how it was possible to publish the first de Chastelain report, and why it is not possible to publish the second report if it is possible to publish a subsequent report, should one be produced.
The Minister talks about confidence-building and trust. I agree that we need confidence and trust. He and the Government—and the Government of the Irish Republic if they have anything to do with the publication of the report, although I do not see why they should—ought to take the House into their confidence and trust the British people by publishing the de Chastelain report so that we know all the gruesome details. I fear that the reason for the Government's unwillingness to publish the report is that some of its comments about the attitude of the IRA and Sinn Fein are unpalatable to the Government.
The Secretary of State has the right to stop prisoner releases if parties to the Good Friday agreement are not complying with it. If the de Chastelain report were published, the Minister might have to decide that the IRA—or Sinn Fein; whatever they like to be called—were not complying with the agreement and that prisoner releases should therefore be suspended.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ENDING SUSPENSION

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1).

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
No. 20, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
(3A) The Secretary of State shall publish the complete text of a review under the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement.
(3B) The Secretary of State shall publish the complete text of any report from the Commission on Decommissioning that may be made in connection with the review conducted under subsection (1).'.

Mr. Ross: I promise not to go on quite as long this evening as I did a week or two ago, because, unfortunately, we have tighter time restrictions.
Amendment No. 15 would delete the lines printed in italics at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill. I do not understand why they are printed in italics, but they say:
"As soon as is reasonably practicable after section 1 comes into force, the Secretary of State must take steps to initiate a review under the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement."
Amendment No. 16 would remove from subsection (3) the words:
Before making a restoration order, the Secretary of State must take into account the result of the review conducted as a result of subsection (1).


Several issues cause me concern. At no time during the Secretary of State's statement to the House last week or his answers to the subsequent questions did he refer to a review. The review came out of the blue. It has already been pointed out that the Secretary of State has other powers that he could use, but he has chosen to go for a review.
May we be told why we were not informed last week? Was it because the Bill had to be drawn up at the very last minute? I doubt it. I have been here long enough to know that Governments tend to have all sorts of contingency plans on the shelf, to pull out of a pigeonhole when needed and polished up. If the right hon. Gentleman knew before his statement that he was going to have a review, why did he not tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland? That straightforward question should receive a straightforward answer.
Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the weapons problem could be dealt with some other way—that he could go down another path, which turned out to be blocked? He made it perfectly plain in his answers on 3 February that weapons had to be dealt with or there would not be devolution because the agreement had not been fully implemented. We hear about full implementation when it concerns something of which the terrorist organisations approve but not when it is something of which the law-abiding population might approve. Stopping the release of prisoners and other things to put on pressure are not done.
The Government's one real lever against the IRA was prisoners. They and their families were exerting pressure on the IRA, on the ground. None of those people should have been let out the gate until such time as weapons were given up. That is the view of everyone in Northern Ireland who understands the mentality of those folk. The Government refused to understand. They threw away their strongest card and let out prisoners, so their leverage against the IRA disappeared. I have no doubt, as the release of prisoners is to continue, that it will be played out right up to July, until the very last of those fellows is out through the gate—including the two chaps that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned, who were sentenced for a double murder only last week.
There could be no doubt where the Unionist population stand. To them, weapons always have been, and are, the litmus test of whether or not the IRA-Sinn Fein system of terror, murder and intimidation will move to democracy. Weapons are the key. The distance that my hon. Friend has travelled is not a distance that I would have travelled. My experience of those people, given that I live among a fair number of them, is perhaps greater than some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I know how they think and react. If one wanted to put pressure on those people, it had to be done in a different way than giving in to them.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) also recognised that point? He said that there should be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door.

Mr. Ross: Perfectly correct, but that view seems to have vanished into the past. The SDLP, it seems, wants to forget about that. All it wants now is an ounce of Semtex left at the door—token decommissioning. We were told that at the weekend. It is not sufficient for the people of Northern Ireland and certainly not sufficient for the Unionist party. Its position is perfectly clear. After this time, there must be a massive giving up of weapons and explosives—the means of violence and war.
During the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who has just left his place, I referred to the Secretary of State's words on 3 February, when he was very precise about his intentions. He said that he would not be suspending the agreement—that it would remain intact, as would the consequences of its creation and all its actions.
I am not clear how the Secretary of State intends to proceed with the review. The Belfast agreement contains three conditions under which a review can take place. [Interruption.] I understand that the two Ministers on the Front Bench know all about this and do not have to listen. I would like to know which of those three conditions applies in this instance. The agreement states, first:
Each institution may, at any time, review any problems that may arise in its operation and, where no other institution is affected, take remedial action in consultation as necessary with the relevant Government or Governments. It will be for each institution to determine its own procedures for review.
Under that procedure, the Assembly can take its own decisions and talk only to the Governments as necessary. I assume that the institutions mentioned refer to the two Governments and the Assembly, rather than to the various bodies which flow from the operation of the Assembly.
The second set of circumstances is:
If there are difficulties in the operation of a particular institution, which have implications for another institution, they may review their operations separately and jointly and agree on remedial action to be taken under their respective authorities.
That would seem to involve a combination of institutions, all having to take separate reviews—followed by a joint review—and then agreeing. That is rather complicated, and I cannot see it meeting with much success if what the Secretary of State said about the frailty of the process and the structure is accurate. A structure that cannot stand another election and still survive has a mighty poor chance of surviving into adulthood.
The third set of circumstances is:
If difficulties arise which require remedial action across the range of institutions, or otherwise require amendment of the British-Irish Agreement or relevant legislation, the process of review will fall to the two Governments in consultation with the parties in the Assembly. Each Government will be responsible for action in its own jurisdiction.
In this case, the two Governments have to take the lead and then consult with the parties in the Assembly. They do not have to get the parties in the Assembly to agree with them—they can go ahead in any case.
Which of those courses of action—or which combination of them—applies in this case? It might be difficult to have a combination, and it may have to be


one. What criteria will the Secretary of State use to make up his mind? When he does make up his mind, will he tell the House which set of criteria he is taking into account and applying? When the review is set up, can we be told what items it will look at? How are the decisions within the review to be reached? Who will make the decisions? What evidence or reasons will be published so people understand what is going on?
Clause 3(2)—which refers to the restoration, as it were—gives the impression that the Secretary of State should not be involved in the review because, if he were, he would have to be not only the investigator and the chairman, but the jury and the judge in regard to whether or not he would restore the Assembly to operation. In those circumstances, we need to know the evidence. We need to know who will chair the review. We need to know the criteria, and the task that the review is being given.
The only reason for this debate is the refusal of the terrorist organisations to hand over their weapons—their firearms and their other means of murdering, blackmailing and intimidating the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland, and of this wider nation. If we are to go beyond the weaponry, we must be told why, what steps are to be taken into account and what is to be reviewed in the next few weeks.

It has already been said that we are here tonight because of the failure of the IRA to decommission and to surrender its weapons to lawful authority in Northern Ireland or in the Irish Republic, and for that reason we should have sight of the de Chastelain reports—both the one that has been completed and any future reports. That is the key. If people could see the report, the debate today would be far more sensible. People would know exactly where they stood and we would not have had all the spin doctoring and the smoke and mirrors of the past week. The lack of precision, the double meaning, the ambiguity, and the nods and winks giving the impression that something is happening when nothing is happening, have been the root cause of the suspicion and anger that we have had in Northern Ireland for so long.
I tell Ministers—not that I expect them to take it on board, but I tell them anyway—that the mere fact that they refuse to publish the de Chastelain report only adds to the anger and suspicion, and makes any settlement far more difficult. It may be that, because Ministers live in the rarefied world of spin doctoring that so many in the House now inhabit, they are incapable of understanding the effect of the refusal to release the report on ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland, but the effect is real and the report should be published.

Mr. Hunter: I tabled amendment No. 20 in the spirit of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) to avoid the ambiguity and obtain the clarification that is lacking. As clause 2 (3) stands, before making a restoration order,
the Secretary of State must take into account the result of the review conducted".
I submit that a requirement to take into account is wholly inadequate and what is needed is the requirement contained in amendment No. 20. First, the Secretary of State should be required to publish the complete text of the review that has been undertaken and, secondly—and

more importantly, in the light of the general thrust of our debate this evening—he should be required to publish the complete text of any report from the commission on decommissioning.
At this stage, with little time left, I shall not rehearse the arguments again, because they have been forcefully presented by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government have totally failed to convince us as to why the de Chastelain report should not have been made available to the House and amendment No. 20 would ensure that that would never happen again.

Mr. Robathan: I shall not detain the House long, because I merely wish to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 20. I notice Ministers muttering on the Treasury Bench, but perhaps they should consider more fully the implications of what they are doing. The issue of the de Chastelain report is a question of confidence and trust. There can be no trust if we are not allowed to see the report. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it refers to the intention of the IRA and Sinn Fein to decommission. We are being asked to legislate without knowing what on earth the report says, but that is leaping hopefully in the dark.
The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that there is no body of opinion in the nationalist community that is opposed to decommissioning. So can the Minister tell us what was in the report? Was there anything to suggest that a body of opinion in the nationalist community—that must include everybody in the nationalist community—is opposed to decommissioning?
If Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA, we must know about Real Sinn Fein, Continuity Sinn Fein and all the other splinter groups. They were in the IRA about two and a half years ago. Are they really so different? Does the Minister have any information—is there any in the de Chastelain report—about such groups as Real Sinn Fein and their links with the rest of the Provisional IRA? It is as certain as it could be that the leadership of the IRA and of Sinn Fein know who is in Real IRA because they used to have an organisation that included them. That relates also to the prosecution of the Omagh bombers, of whom only one has so far been arrested. Does the report say anything about that? It has been alleged that two Members of this House, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness—not yet hon. Members, because they have not taken the oath—may know who these people are. Have they helped in any way in the prosecution of the Omagh bombers?
We need to see that report so that we can make a judgment on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. We do not trust Ministers to make it for us.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I, too, do not want to detain the House. However, I was most disappointed at the Minister's earlier suggestion that we were playing some sort of game over this issue, which goes to the heart of the matter. If the report is not published and made known to us, and if we are not given a chance to debate it, how will it be possible to convince Sinn Fein-IRA that this House and our Government are serious about the need for decommissioning? If we are not to have the opportunity to question Ministers on how much movement they require before considering invoking clause 2, how will we know—and how will they know—whether or not the whole process is nothing more than a charade in the eyes of Ministers?


Will the Minister clarify again whether the Government have a right to publish the report independent of any permission or agreement from the other Government, who claim that it is their property as well? In the absence of a clear reply, we do not know whether Ministers can activate clause 2 when they believe it appropriate to do so without the prior agreement of the other Government. Neither do we know what change there must be in circumstances, and what criteria the Minister will objectively apply before invoking clause 2.

Mr. Thompson: Clause 2 provides that, after the Assembly is suspended and the Executive members lose their posts, a review has to take place. The review seems to be very limited, as it centres mainly on decommissioning—when it will take place, if it will take place, when weapons will start to be given up and when it will be completed. These matters have been debated on numerous occasions. As a result of understandings reached in the last review, it was assumed that they had been resolved. However, as we have come to see, they have not been resolved. It is unlikely that they will be resolved in any review—certainly not to the satisfaction of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.
The review should be much wider, taking into account the changes that have taken place in the people of Northern Ireland and their views, especially in the Unionist community. For it is absolutely clear that the majority of people in the Unionist community no longer support the agreement.
We have always been told that any future Government of Northern Ireland and any future Assembly must have the support of the majority of both sides of the community. Support is obviously lacking on the Unionist side of the community. If support were lacking on the nationalist side, we would be told that a wide-ranging review would be needed. However, it seems not to matter when support no longer exists in the Unionist part of the community—it seems that we shall plod on anyway.
I implore Ministers to undertake a wide-ranging review that considers all the issues, rather than just decommissioning. We need a thorough review so that we may achieve proper administration for Northern Ireland that is democratic, accountable and supported by all the people.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Secretary of State's explanation of the Government's reasons for not publishing the de Chastelain report are totally unsatisfactory. We have not got to the bottom of the question whether the Irish Government have a veto. We had the bizarre statement that if General de Chastelain produces a third report, it will, even if entirely unpalatable and full of unwelcome news, be published along with the second.
By not publishing the report, the Government have let fly a flurry of speculation. First, there is speculation about what the report contains—and that may be damaging, because rumour builds on rumour, and speculation on speculation. Secondly, there is speculation about why the Government are not publishing it. Their refusal does them no credit, and it does the House no credit given that our whole debate has been triggered by the report and the IRA's refusal to disarm. Hon. Members are grown-ups,

and the general public watching our proceedings must find it bizarre that we have not been made party to the critical information that has triggered the debate. I appeal to the Minister to give us a serious and sensible reason why the report has not been published.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seeks to remove the requirement for a review. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 contradict the main purpose of suspension, which will come about only if it becomes clear that the political institutions no longer carry cross-community support and confidence. If that happens, it will be essential to bring the process back on track through discussion and negotiation. In other words, we will need a review.
That fact was recognised during the negotiations that resulted in the Good Friday agreement, which is why the agreement includes a section titled "Validation, implementation and review". If suspension occurred without a subsequent review, we might find ourselves in a dangerous political vacuum, and that could lead to the destruction of everything for which we have worked for so long. Almost certainly, the Good Friday agreement would end, because suspension without a follow-on would end the story.
A desire to see that state of affairs come about may well lie behind the hon. Gentleman's amendments. The Bill is intended not to suspend the agreement, but to save it. Although I know that the hon. Gentleman—he posed a series of questions, but he appears to have left the Chamber—would disagree with me, I hope he would accept that we are being consistent. I am convinced that the twin proposal of suspension followed by review will bring us to a positive outcome. We cannot do that by suspension alone. I cannot in all conscience recommend that we accept amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

I understand the rationale behind amendment No. 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—that the review be carried out as openly as possible. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made a similar point. Given the nature of the discussions that are likely to take place, complete public openness will not always be possible if we are to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Right hon. and hon. Members can envisage circumstances in which some talks would need to take place away from the public gaze. In the past, some talks between parties have taken place in a way that protected the participants and allowed them the space to decide in which direction to move.
However, it is our intention to be as open as possible and to make as much information as possible available to the public, to the House and to anybody else. At present, it is not entirely clear how the review will operate; we do not know who will chair it, or how, when, where or between whom the meetings will take place. Those details will need to be worked out, if and when the institutions are suspended.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry speculated that more detailed arrangements might be in hand, and were ready to be executed. However, in reality, we shall have to cross the bridge, and then my right hon. Friend and others will have to make the arrangements. We cannot give detailed answers at present, because we have not yet crossed that bridge—of deciding on suspension.
Until the shape of the review and its terms of reference are finalised, it is not possible to say whether there will be a report. However, the provision is not one of such import that it should be included in the Bill. It is a marginal issue when compared with provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
The second part of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Basingstoke concerns the publication of a decommissioning report during any suspension period. At present, I cannot say whether a further decommissioning commission report will be issued soon. General de Chastelain may have something new to report at any time, but it is within the commission's discretion to decide whether and when to issue such a report. If the general issues another report, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be brought to the attention of the House and that its primary findings will be made public. Consequently, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I have been a Member of this place for a fair number of years, Sir Alan. It is rare that a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and asks hon. Members to accept legislation such that we know not what it will do, nor how, nor why, and we know not who is in charge of it. In the light of the Minister's inadequate response, we must press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 301.

Division No. 66]
[9.34 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Flight, Howard
Swayne, Desmond


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, William


Maclean, Rt Hon David



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Laurence
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Andrew Robathan.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradshaw, Ben


Ainger, Nick
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Alexander, Douglas
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Burgon, Colin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burstow, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Austin, John
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Ballard, Jackie



Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Battle, John
Cann, Jamie


Bayley, Hugh
Casale, Roger


Beard, Nigel
Caton, Martin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cawsey, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chaytor, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Chidgey, David


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Berry, Roger
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clelland, David


Blizzard, Bob
Clwyd, Ann


Borrow, David
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coleman, Iain


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Colman, Tony





Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Cooper, Yvette
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cotter, Brian
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam



Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Khabra, Piara S


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kidney, David


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobbin, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Doran, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Dowd, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Drew, David
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lepper, David


Edwards, Huw
Leslie, Christopher


Efford, Clive
Levitt, Tom


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Etherington, Bill
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Livsey, Richard


Fitzsimons, Loma
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Love, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Don (Bath)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fyfe, Maria
Macdonald, Calum


Galbraith, Sam
McDonnell, John


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gardiner, Barry
McGrady, Eddie


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McIsaac, Shona


Gerrard, Neil
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNamara, Kevin


Goggins, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Grogan, John
Marshall, David (Shettteston)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maxton, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hanson, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Harris, Dr Evan
Miller, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moore, Michael


Healey, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heppell, John
Moriey, Elliot


Hesford, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David
Mountford, Kali


Hoey, Kate
Mudie, George


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug






Norris, Dan
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Eddie
Smith, Jacqui (Redditeh)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Öpik, Lembit
Snape, Peter


Organ, Mrs Diana
Soley, Clive


Pearson, Ian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Perham, Ms Linda
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pike, Peter L
Stinchcombe, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pollard, Kerry
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pond, Chris
Stringer, Graham


Pope, Greg
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pound, Stephen
Stunell, Andrew


Powell, Sir Raymond
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Purchase, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Todd, Mark


Rendel, David
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Truswell, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis (Wdverh'ton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sanders, Adrian
Webb, Steve


Sarwar, Mohammad
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shaw, Jonathan
Winnfck, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Mike


Shipley, Ms Debra
Woolas, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Worthington, Tony


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Mr. Tony McNulty.

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mandelson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Having listened to the debate, I have no doubt how most hon. Members would sum up the views of the House. There are those in the House who reject the entire notion of inclusive government. They would rather not have self-government than share it with those whom they consider beneath contempt.
Those who reject self-government because they cannot bear the idea of sharing it with others do not speak for the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who have

demonstrated beyond doubt that they like devolution, they like having their own Executive, and they like having locally elected people who are democratically accountable—local voices taking decisions on local issues, and people with local accents in charge of local affairs.
What unites most of us is not a rejectionist mentality. Most of us, of whatever party or leaning, want the Good Friday agreement to succeed. There are aspects of it that some do not like, but they realise that the agreement stands or falls as a whole. It must be taken as a job lot. It cannot be cherry-picked. It must go forward together or not at all.
Most of us in the House commend the Unionists for letting devolution happen, and we share their disappointment that decommissioning has not followed. I do not believe that any hon. Member would honestly or realistically deny that the original deal following Mitchell was that if the Unionists went first, others would follow, and that following devolution, a start on decommissioning would be made not long afterwards.
What also joins most of us in the House is that we are not obsessed with attaching blame to anyone. We are not interested in spreading recrimination for our current difficulties. We would prefer people to make the agreement work, rather than stand accused of acting in bad faith. Accusing people of bad faith and of letting others down gets us nowhere. I am struck and I feel encouraged by the marked absence of recrimination.

Mr. Thompson: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: No, I am sorry, I shall make my speech. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
It is striking that right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate were overwhelmingly positive. They wanted the agreement to succeed. They were not interested in playing some ridiculous, destructive blame game. We can agree thus far. However, we must consider what we should do now that decommissioning has not begun, and what the Ulster Unionists should do in its absence. Most Ulster Unionists are running on empty because of the disappointing lack of progress. Consequently, the Executive is close to collapse, in a matter not of weeks but, tragically, of days. What is the right course of action?
There are no easy options for anyone. Some are marginally less disagreeable than others. Several hon. Members who contributed to today's debate suggested that the Government are motivated simply by a desire to head off a Unionist veto or to deal with Unionist blackmail, and that our actions are determined by a metaphorical Unionist gun, which is pointing at our heads. That is not true. We face a complicated, real-life political predicament, and we must deal with it. People have genuine attitudes and prejudices; they have become genuinely exhausted and despair of the situation. We must face that reality and work out a response to it that preserves our achievements, saves what has been created and ensures the endurance of the possibility that the institutions and the very important Executive will flourish permanently. I am firmly set on that course, not on some short-term manoeuvre or tactics that will simply tide us over the next day or two.
We are not considering any individual. We are not trying to save the skin of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), although his skin is pretty valuable,


and worth saving if we can. I believe that because he has shown admirable leadership of his party; because we would never have formed the Executive and set up the institutions without him; because he has a great deal of leadership left in him; and because, if he relinquished the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party, I would fear for the consequences for Northern Ireland, given his likely replacement.
We are not considering going back to the bad old days of Stormont, and government by one side of the community. We shall not do that now, later or at any time. Under no circumstances or terms will we entertain for one moment a reversion to that form of government in Northern Ireland.
I appeal to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to whatever extent they found the attitudes of some Ulster Unionist Members who contributed to the debate lacking, not to take a similarly one-sided view in their analysis of the situation in Northern Ireland. The new institutions in Northern Ireland cannot function with the support and confidence of one tradition alone. The new Executive needs two legs to walk on. At the moment, one leg is badly disabled and out of action. I do not think that the Unionist leg is out of action permanently, but it is dragging its foot slightly lamely as a result of a collapse in confidence following Unionist disappointment over the lack of decommissioning since the Executive was set up. I regret that and wish things were different. If I were a doctor with a miracle remedy at my disposal, I would apply it to that Unionist leg and hope for an immediate or overnight cure, but I am afraid that one is not available to me.
There is still a chance that we can repair what has gone wrong before the weekend, which I entirely accept is the next watershed that we face. I appeal to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann not to despair and not to turn off, but to remain open to new ideas and new proposals that might yet be canvassed in the coming days and to keep the channels open. We will need all his strength and energy during the review if we are to succeed in resurrecting the Executive and the institutions, should it prove painfully necessary to implement the Bill before the weekend.
I say to my hon. Friends from the Social Democratic and Labour party that I understand only too well why they feel that the option of suspension—putting the Executive and the other institutions on hold—is so very painful. The nationalist people whom they represent in Northern Ireland have been shut out of government for so long through no fault of their own, so it is deeply disappointing—almost too much to bear—to have staked their claim in the ground of the new Executive only to have it so cruelly removed after only eight weeks. I fully understand and deeply sympathise. If I could do anything to avoid that, I would do it. If there is anything that the Government, together with the Irish Government, can do before the end of the week to avoid that, we shall do it.
I understand why the prospect of returning to direct rule is so unattractive and so disagreeable, but, although this may be unfair, perhaps it is all right for the SDLP to indulge itself somewhat by not facing up to the harsh and unpalatable reality of what we have to do. For others, I am afraid that there is no alternative to the heavy lifting that we have to undertake and no alternative to putting

the institutions on hold to create a pause to give us time—a breathing space—so that we can work hard with it and with others to resurrect that which we hold so dear.

Mr. Tony Benn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that positive statement. May I make a suggestion, which might be helpful? The Bill gives him the right to suspend the Executive and the Assembly. It is an undated cheque. He can suspend them at the end of the week if there is no news—or in a year or two years—without coming back to Parliament, but Parliament has to pass an order for them to be restored. Can he give the assurance, which would be very welcome, that he would come back to the House to make a statement in the light of the contemporary circumstances, which might be quite different, if at any time and for any reason it was necessary to bring the Bill into force, even though there is no legislative provision for that? That would give us an opportunity to consider and endorse his proposals.

Mr. Mandelson: That is a tempting offer by my right hon. Friend, and I fully understand the spirit in which it was made. I am afraid that I may not have that scope; there may not be that flexibility, between now and when I have to act, to come back to the House to make a statement and to give the House a further opportunity to debate the matter. If it were possible, if I had that latitude, I would certainly use it, because I regard it as very important on an issue as important as this, on which there are such strongly held feelings, to give people any and every opportunity to debate it properly in the only place in which democracy—live, open democracy—has been able to operate in relation to Northern Ireland for so long.
I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate. I very much hope that, in the weeks and months ahead, if we have to take this painful decision before the weekend, it will not be too long before I can return to the House with better, more positive and constructive news. I hope that I can show how the parties together, as a result of the review that we intend to make, have been able to chart a new way through these very difficult waters, and how we are able ultimately to get the progress we want, not only in creating proper, democratic, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, but in having the decommissioning that is an essential part of this peace process, without which the politics in Northern Ireland will not work.
I am confident; I am optimistic. I will certainly use all my energy to make sure that we get out of the dip—the trough—that we have now slipped into. I hope that it will not be too long before I can return to the House and give it better news.

Mr. Öpik: In view of the Secretary of State's response to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I imagine that this is the last time that we shall have a chance to debate this matter before the Bill can be used. That is regrettable because, at the very least, a short debate would have been helpful. I am sorry that he did not feel able to give that guarantee.
Nevertheless, decommissioning has been widely debated tonight, and it is obvious that we are close to a watershed on the whole issue. I have just three short comments to make. First, I re-emphasise how important


it is to take seriously the points made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), because he represents a legitimate and considerable body of people in the community in Northern Ireland who will regard the enactment of this Bill—the suspension of the Assembly—as a very negative statement with regard to devolution as a whole. I plead with the Minister to be extremely sensitive to the need to ensure that there are confidence-building measures in place for those communities, a willingness to explain exactly what is going on and an assurance that this is not a one-way walk from the Assembly to a dark place from which we had all sincerely hoped we had moved forward.
Secondly, it is important for us to recognise the potential for division and recrimination, the noise created by this between the communities as all sides blame each other for the potential suspension of the Assembly. The Government must play a part in ensuring that we do not end up with own goals as a result of the implementation of a suspension.
Thirdly, we need to remember that this is an emergency only if we make it so. The Bill is probably right. It is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of political probabilities that we are discussing it at all. However, it is right only so long as we make sure that the political temperature is kept down as it is moved forward. I see the Bill as an attempt to avert an emergency on 22 May, by which time, as we all know, full decommissioning is meant to have taken place. I think that the Government should play it by ear, and listen carefully as the public in Northern Ireland inevitably respond to any suspension.
Let me conclude with an emotional response. I feel very sad about what we have done today. In comparison with where we were, say, five years ago, we have made tremendous and unexpected progress, but it now seems that we are going to take a couple of steps back. In fact, that is not surprising: a characteristic element of the Northern Ireland peace process has been the taking of two steps forward and one step back. I hope that this really is just one step back, and that we shall not allow the process to begin to atrophy or stall just because the difficult decision to suspend the Assembly has been made.
I say to the Government, "Please, please be sensitive to the dangers of the Bill. Please be sensitive to the likely reaction in nationalist and republican communities, who will be very disappointed about the fact that things have gone backwards." I say to the whole House that, given that we have supported the Bill by and large—and we do need to be sombre about what it will do—I sincerely hope that, if implemented, it will be seen as a staging post. Nevertheless, I feel that, having seen sunlight on the Province, we are now walking back into a valley.

Mr. McDonnell: This has been a sombre debate. I contrast it with the time, nearly two years ago, when we had a sense of hope and a sense of the future. It was then that we realised that the Belfast agreement might give us the opportunity of ensuring that the future of the island of Ireland would be determined not by the gun or the bomb or by British mandate, but by the Irish people themselves.
The agreement gave the Unionists the possibility that their future would be decided neither by some form of brute force nor by a British sell-out. They would be a

party to decisions: that is why they would regain the structures of a statelet. For republicans and nationalists, there was the acceptance of the sovereignty of the Irish people as a whole, and the prospect of a mechanism to create a united Ireland. The agreement gave all of us—both traditions—peace and an opportunity to involve ourselves in policy making and governmental structures that would have an impact on the day-to-day lives of the citizens of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. It offered the chance of a normalisation of politics—of the politics that we have taken for granted on this island: politics that are determined by electoral mandates and policy discussion in a civilised framework.
The agreement gave us the chance of a radical reform programme, the achievement of equality, respect for human rights and, in every area of policy and everyday life, a debate about what the quality of life should be. I am sorry that some quarters have appealed tonight for a retreat from that programme of reform, for it is important that we press on.
For some of us, the agreement provided the hope of a united island of Ireland at some time in the future, on the basis of agreement and mutual respect for different traditions. It provided the hope of an Ireland strengthened by the process of agreement. We accepted that peace was never to be a single act and that there were never to be any armistices. It was a process that would be achieved in stages. There must be incremental steps: lessening violence, removing violence, engaging in dialogue, achieving the appreciation of different perspectives and the understanding of different views, and securing agreement for a way forward.
That is why the Bill is such a step backwards—and it is a major step backwards. It removes the structures of the government of Northern Ireland that would make possible the debate, the process of reform and the dialogue. I am confident that we shall eventually restore those structures and achieve peace, but, as we have heard today, there is a history of structures being abolished or suspended that goes back about a quarter of a century.
I believe that the Bill poses a risk. Some people are trying to use the decommissioning issue to undermine elements in the Good Friday agreement, and some are trying to undermine the agreement overall. Decommissioning has become a weapon in the hands of anti-agreement elements—of rejectionists. It was used first as an excuse to delay the setting up of the Executive; now it is used to put the whole peace process in jeopardy. But what does decommissioning mean? The IRA has not fired weapons or exploded bombs since the restoration of the ceasefire on 20 July 1997. Before that, the ceasefire had lasted from 13 October 1994 to 9 February 1996. With the exception of the tragedy at Canary wharf, the IRA had held a disciplined ceasefire, with weapons out of commission for more than five years.
No one in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s would have ever been optimistic enough to hope that that could be achieved within that time scale. The weapons are out of commission. We are urged today to suspend the arrangements and structures that have consolidated that ceasefire, that form of decommissioning. Why? Because some want to press some extraordinary process of surrender—and surrender is what it will be viewed as.

Mr. Harry Barnes: All the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate so far,


including those who voted against Second Reading, have pointed out that they are in favour of decommissioning. Is that a position that my hon. Friend adopts? As he is closer to contacts with Sinn Fein than I will ever be, will he press decommissioning upon them, because it is the friends, or the people who have links with Sinn Fein, who might be able to shift its position?

Mr. McDonnell: Decommissioning has been recognised as a responsibility. That is why the agreement was signed, but decommissioning itself is a process and the achievement for most of us was peace, the lack of bombs and the lack of the use of the gun. That has been achieved. That is an argument of good faith, which has been demonstrated, but the ramifications of pressing the process to its nth degree have already been explained: the risks of splits and jeopardy for all. This week's bomb is a reminder of the problems and of how it is difficult to hold organisations and traditions together.

Mr. Winnick: Most of us were against the IRA campaign of terror, as we were against the so-called loyalists on the other side during those long 30 years. We made our position clear. Will my hon. Friend take into account the article in The Irish Times today—which I have already quoted in an intervention—by my friend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who pleaded with the IRA for some form of decommissioning? We should bear it in mind that it was he who set the peace process in motion in the first place.

Mr. McDonnell: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Of course, we are all pleading with all sides to move forward together on a path to peace and to decommissioning in the end, but let us make it clear that the agreement contains no provision for the suspension of power and did not set a deadline—the deadline has been set as a result of an external intervention by the Unionists. It is the exercise of a Unionist veto on the agreement, a veto that is dangerous.
The Unionist veto was dangerously used in 1975 and 1985. There have been periods when it has undermined the democratic institutions that British Governments have tried to establish in the Six Counties. We are seeing it again now. Why should we allow a timetable to be imposed by one of the parties to the agreement which is not in the agreement?
A lasting peace can be founded only on trust. It is clear that sufficient trust has not been established between the parties to the conflict. The irony of the Bill is that it suspends the operation of the key body that is engendering trust—the Assembly. The Assembly is the key forum, in which representatives from all the constituencies and all the parties are able to meet, mix, discuss and work together on common problems in the interests of their community. That process is a key foundation stone of building trust to secure decommissioning. After only eight weeks' operation, we are asked to suspend that key body of trust and confidence building.
The Bill's wide-ranging powers are shocking. The Secretary of State is able by order not just on this occasion through the Bill, but on future occasions, to suspend the Assembly and all the mechanisms associated with the agreement without full and adequate debate. Orders are never adequately debated in the Chamber. That wide-ranging power does not even contain a review element;

there is no review element on revocation or restoration. It is government by order. There is no power in the legislation for consultation with the Irish Government, although I accept Ministers' assurances on that point.
I oppose the Bill. It will not help the peace process; it is dangerous; it is undemocratic; and it cannot be supported. The Belfast agreement was founded on an agreement to secure by consent peace and a future for the island of Ireland. The Bill rides roughshod over the concept of consent, without even consulting the Northern Ireland Assembly or going back to the people of Ireland.
If we are not careful, the Bill will undermine the peace process. I therefore urge care on the Secretary of State. I urge him not to enact the Bill immediately, but to allow more time for discussion and, if necessary, to bring together again the parties that founded the Belfast agreement. This short-term measure could have long-term ramifications, and I urge other hon. Members to vote against it.

Mr. William Ross: I have occasionally listened to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) speak on Northern Ireland and Irish affairs, but I rarely find myself in agreement with him. However, I agree with all those who complain about rushed legislation. In the years that I have been in this place, I have seen that every time a new piece of legislation is rushed through, we have lived to regret it in one form or another.
In this case, I believe that the Bill is the inevitable consequence of the IRA failing to live up to the commitments that it appeared to give. IRA spin doctoring did good service. In Northern Ireland, however, people like clarity, and one cannot get away with trying to conceal reality in ambiguous language. Eventually, reality breaks through.
I regret that we have not managed to examine the rest of the Bill's clauses and amendments, few though they are. Various issues were raised in the amendments that should have been debated. I do not believe that this is a happy day for anyone. To some extent, I also regret it. However, my reasons for regretting it are different from those that have been expressed hitherto.
My regrets stem from the fact that we are in this position today because we did not at the very outset address the hard issues of weaponry and IRA objectives. If those issues had been settled initially—three, four or five years ago—we would not be debating this Bill. We would have come up with a totally different agreement and a totally different Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Although we probably would have had something at a much lower level, it would at least have been workable and provided us with a sound foundation for the future in Northern Ireland—with that part of the United Kingdom remaining firmly within this Kingdom. That, of course, is the crux of the matter. Republicans of all stripes seek to destroy the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within this Kingdom. It is around that political and constitutional issue that all the battles have been fought and all the violence has taken place, and from which all the horrors that we have suffered have flowed.
Unless and until certainty is introduced, and unless and until doubt is removed about the long-term political and constitutional future of Northern Ireland, we can expect


violence to come back in one form or another. That old, old sermon has been preached in the House for many years by me and by many other hon. Members, but I fear that it has not yet been absorbed. I think that, in any Parliament, we get to the stage when people start to absorb the lesson, learn from it, understand it and accept it. Then, we have a general election and a new group of hon. Members have to be taught all over again. It is a learning process, perhaps, for many right hon. and hon. Members, but it is a learning process that the people of Ulster have paid for in blood.

Mr. McGrady: When the Bill is passed today, as I am sure it will be, it will be a very traumatic experience for the political process in Northern Ireland. In 1974, I participated in the formation of the Executive. In the intervening 26 years, we have struggled to re-establish that which we had then. It is true that, at that point, the Executive—that partnership—was brought down by the violence of the loyalist paramilitaries and the extreme loyalist political parties. Times change over a quarter of a century and I thought that we had built an edifice that would withstand the test of the coming weekend.
My party is opposed to the Bill, as we showed by voting against Second Reading. We do not see any merit in it, or even understand the strategy involved. Because the leader of one party gave a pawn ticket to his party that certain things would happen by a certain date, we are condemned to be the unserving elected representatives of Northern Ireland for an indefinite time. As many people have said, in Northern Ireland it is much easier to destroy than to build.
I understand the difficulties and the gamble that the Government are taking, but we think that the gamble is wrong. We do not understand the purpose of the Bill other than to protect the leadership of one of the eight parties in the Assembly. If the Bill, with all that could flow from it, is directed to that one end, as I fear that it is, it does not say much for the Government's understanding of the circumstances of Northern Ireland and our capability—it takes time but it has been well illustrated over the past 24 months—to muddle through our differences somehow and come out again at the other end.
I have experienced 30 years of killing and maiming. I say clearly that weapons should have been decommissioned—indeed, they should never have existed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said many months ago, the process is for the slow learners who failed to understand what Sunningdale was about. I would not like to contemplate the aftermath of the failure of 1974 being repeated.
If the Secretary of State's intention is to achieve decommissioning, I assure him that he is going about it in the wrong way. I sincerely want decommissioning. I have opposed violence all my life. I know that promises and understandings given during the Mitchell review in the last weeks of November have not been fulfilled by Sinn Fein. The question was who was to jump first—would it be devolution or decommissioning? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party took the courageous step of jumping first. My understanding was that decommissioning would be the second phase and

would happen before Christmas. If that had happened, the de Chastelain report of 31 January would have been positive. I understand that it is not, although I have not seen it.
We have been let down yet again by the paramilitaries, but let us pause with this thought: are the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries—let us not forget that they have not decommissioned either—working together to ensure that the democratic process fails? Do they see the development and success of the Assembly—I assume that its last meeting was held today—as a danger to their programme of violence? Do they see no future for themselves? Is that why they are trying to break the process?
Getting eight different parties to work together has not been easy. Even the members of the Democratic Unionist party, who are opposed to the agreement, are working in all the Committees and other paraphernalia of the Assembly, even if they are in separate rooms from the rest of us. That is an evolutionary process. We have a lot to tolerate in one another and the only way is participation in the Assembly. I fear—virtually dread—that the effects of the Bill will come into force prematurely, without giving us the chance to create our solution to our problem. The Bill is a bad idea.
I understand the sincerity and integrity of the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues in presenting the Bill to the House. We must beg to differ on interpretations of what will happen. I hope sincerely that the Goverment are right and I am wrong.

Mr. Hunter: Unusually, I find myself supporting the Government. I had no hesitation in voting for the Bill on Second Reading, and in the prevailing circumstances, the Government are taking the right action.
I deeply regret, however, the tone and tenor of the Secretary of State's early comments. As long as he equates opposition to the Belfast agreement with opposition to peace, the right hon. Gentleman will alienate himself increasingly from a significant body of thinking. I have never concealed my personal opposition to the agreement and have incurred much unpopularity for so doing. I do not believe that that agreement will generate or create political stability—without which there can be no lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Civilised society has core values that include the absolute rule of law, a system of justice free from political intervention and genuinely accountable democratic structures—so the Belfast agreement and the political arrangements that flow from it are ultimately doomed to failure. I demand the right to express that view without being accused of being opposed to peace. Every time the Secretary of State makes such an allegation, he is alienating himself from an important body of thinking in the province of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
I regret that tonight's debate has been accelerated, although I appreciate the reasons. Only two clauses in this Bill of nine clauses were debated in Committee. It is most unfortunate that so much of the Bill is being passed without detailed consideration by this House. I hope that will be put right in the other place and that there will be amendments, so that our debate can be prolonged.
I particularly regret the fact that we did not debate one of the Bill's deficiencies, in clause 9. The Secretary of State said that the Good Friday agreement stands or


falls together. I only wish that were so. The agreement contains a number of independent strands that are not related. If we had reached clause 9, I had hoped to debate the desirability of linking suspension of the structures and institutions of direct rule with the accelerated release of prisoners. I hope that point will be raised in another place.
I support the Bill but regret that it did not receive more consideration. I regret that the Secretary of State continues to equate those who oppose the Belfast agreement with those who oppose peace.

Mr. Barnes: Two speeches have expressed fully the view of those who are opposed to the Bill, and they should be responded to—one was from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and the other was from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I know and respect both Members, and they speak well and from the heart. However, their arguments were flawed and I wish to try to counter them.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that things are different now, and he wishes that state of affairs to continue. Everyone can agree with that, and there has been a fantastic change in the nature of Northern Ireland politics. However, we have to ask how that came about. It came about because of all the work done to establish the Belfast agreement, which is still in place.
The Assembly and the Executive extended the arrangements and started to bring people together. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the policy was one of jumping first and attempting to take others along afterwards. As that has not occurred, we have a problem. If suspension did not take place and if there were no decommissioning, the Assembly and Executive would go forward on a false prospectus. We must seek to tackle and correct that by the suspension method if decommissioning does not take place.
The second argument of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the chances of achieving decommissioning were lessened with the suspension. I do not know whether they are lessened or improved, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman knows, either. If suspension occurs, we will at least avoid the collapse of the Executive, which would have been much more damaging in terms of decommissioning.
We know that Sinn Fein has many interests in keeping the process on board. Its future in democratic politics is open. It can become a major party within Northern Ireland, and a major party within the Republic of Ireland, holding the balance of power. We should expect Sinn Fein to be involved in decommissioning, to achieve those hopes.
The third argument from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the suspension played into the hands of those who are against the Belfast agreement. That is entirely wrong. Without the suspension, we would play into the hands of those—especially in the Unionist camp—who wish to see a majority of "no" voters and who wish to stop the developments.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh's fourth argument was that there was no such thing as a soft landing. I do not think that anybody is arguing that there is an easy or soft landing; there are many difficulties. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) argued

that neither decommissioning nor going back to the bombings was on the cards, and that we would need to work carefully in continuing our efforts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that the desire to use weapons had gone. If that desire has gone, it seems to me that the circumstances are then much easier for weapons to be handed in. Those two things should go together, and the record of exilings, beatings and other incidents suggests that the desire has not yet gone.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield argued that suspension was a victory for the rejectionists—a similar argument to the one used by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. My right hon. Friend's major argument, however, was that democracy was taken away from Northern Ireland by the Bill. That is not quite true. Democracy, in some senses, is certainly weakened by having the institutions taken away. There are alternative democratic institutions that will operate—but what is democracy, especially in a context in which people live in fear of guns?
I have just finished reading once more Nye Bevan's book "In Place of Fear", which he wrote in 1952 and in which he talked about the need for democracy. He recognised that democracy was weakened in circumstances in which people were exploited and placed in fear, and he said that democracy could not function properly unless the conditions of exploitation were removed. He directed his remarks mostly at class power and wealth in society, but we can apply the principles in his book to the situation in Northern Ireland. Democracy will be distorted if the gun poses a threat to its operation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have followed my hon. Friend's speech with care. However, how are we likely to be able to persuade Unionism to come back into the Assembly and the Executive, given that the Anglo-Irish agreement has now gone and that articles 2 and 3 are changed—which were the two main points that Unionism wanted to achieve in the negotiations? They have been achieved but there has been no quid pro quo. How will the situation be restored and, in particular, how will we maintain the Irish dimension, which has also now gone?

Mr. Barnes: I believe that the Unionist population will ensure that the politicians respond to those concerns. A change has taken place, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, and it is a fantastic alteration in Northern Ireland politics that no one wants to let go. The commitment that has been made by the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party means that it is possible to maintain the change. What has to happen is that the rest of the Unionist camp, who are trying to realign and reorganise, have to be outmatched. If we put a little faith in Sinn Fein being able to advance towards decommissioning, we may also put some faith in the Ulster Unionist party and other forces in Northern Ireland—such as the Women's Coalition and other people—in the hope that they will bring about that change.

Mr. Thompson: Having lived in Northern Ireland all my life, I have listened in amazement to some of the speeches that have been made today. Many of those who have made speeches may have been well meaning, but they have shown that they do not know very much about Northern Ireland.
We have tried to press the Secretary of State on why he has not produced the de Chastelain document. I suggest that he is embarrassed to do so, because there is nothing in the document. The former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister assured us that there was a tremendous change happening in the IRA and that it would decommission. Indeed, we have heard this evening from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that he expected to see decommissioning. Many reporters also expected to see decommissioning. The fact is that they have all—including the Government—been fooled by the IRA because it does not intend to give up any of its arms. It is an embarrassment to the Government to have to acknowledge that, especially to the Prime Minister.
We have listened to many speeches in praise of the wonderful Assembly and all the good things that are supposed to be happening in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State waxed so eloquent on the subject that he was carried away by his own enthusiasm, oratory and spin doctoring. Then he had to tell us that the situation was on the brink of disaster and that it no longer had the support of the Unionist community, which it does not. He also told us that a crisis would develop at the weekend unless he took action. He told us that if the leader of the Ulster Unionist party resigned, the whole thing would collapse. He said that there could be another election, but that would be a disaster because a majority would not be returned supporting the agreement, so the only alternative was to suspend the agreement.
Thirdly, as the Secretary of State spoke from the Dispatch Box this evening, I noticed the change of tone from last week, when he told us that Sinn Fein had betrayed the Ulster Unionist people and the people of Ulster by not decommissioning. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman talked about all the people of Ireland, in fact.

Mr. Mandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman way?

Mr. Thompson: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Mandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way and allow me to correct what he said?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Thompson: I will not give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly is not going to give way.

Mr. Thompson: A tremendous change was signalled by the right hon. Gentleman's statement this evening, when he said that we must not blame anybody. He has said very little about the IRA this evening, but he has been very patronising to the members of the Ulster Unionist party. Let me say this to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: he should not ignore the views or the decisions of the Ulster Unionist people because, ultimately, nothing can work in Northern Ireland without their consent.
This has to come—there has to be suspension. But in any review, let the Secretary of State recognise that he must satisfy the views of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland if there is to be eventual peace in Northern Ireland.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 7.

Division No. 67]
[10.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coleman, Iain


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Colman, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cotter, Brian


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Austin, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Banks, Tony
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Battle, John
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bayley, Hugh
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benton, Joe



Berry, Roger
Dawson, Hilton


Best, Harold
Dean, Mrs Janet


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blackman, Liz
Dobbin, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Dowd, Jim


Borrow, David
Drew, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Efford, Clive


Bradshaw, Ben
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Etherington, Bill


Browne, Desmond
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Fisher, Mark


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons, Loma


Burns, Simon
Rint, Caroline


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Caplin, Ivor
Gardiner, Barry


Casale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Caton, Martin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cawsey, Ian
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grieve, Dominic


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grogan, John


Clelland, David
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)






Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McCabe, Steve


Hanson, David
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Harris, Dr Evan
McDonagh, Siobhain


Harvey, Nick
Macdonald, Calum


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McFall, John


Healey, John
McIsaac, Shona


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Heppell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Hill, Keith
McWalter, Tony


Hinchliffe, David
McWilliam, John


Hoey, Kate
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mallaber, Judy


Hope, Phil
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall, David (Shetteston)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Maxton, John


Humble, Mrs Joan
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Hurst, Alan
Merron, Gillian


Hutton, John
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Illsley, Eric
Miller, Andrew


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Heten (Hillsborough)
Moore, Michael


Jenkins, Brian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Wewyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Moriey, Elliot


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Helen (Wanington N)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Mountford, Kali



Mudie, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Martyn (Ctwyd S)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Dan


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Khabra, Piara S
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Kidney, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Kilfoyle, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Öpik, Lembit


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Paisley, Rev Ian


Kirkwood, Archy
Paterson, Owen


Lansley, Andrew
Pearson, Ian


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Perham, Ms Linda


Laxton, Bob
Pickthall, Colin


Lepper, David
Pike, Peter L


Leslie, Christopher
Plaskitt, James


Levitt, Tom
Pollard, Kerry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pond, Chris


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Pope, Greg


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Pound, Stephen


Lidington, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Livsey, Richard
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Loughton, Tim
Prosser, Gwyn


Love, Andrew
Purchase, Ken


McAvoy, Thomas
Quinn, Lawrie





Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Stringer, Graham


Rammell, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Raynsford, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David



Robertson, Laurence
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Thompson, William


Rowlands, Ted
Timms, Stephen


Roy, Frank
Tipping, Paddy


Ruane, Chris
Todd, Mark


Ruddock, Joan
Touhig, Don


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Trickett, Jon


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Truswell, Paul


St Aubyn, Nick
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Derek (Hatton)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tyler, Paul


Singh, Marsha
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Winntok, David


Snape, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Woodward, Shaun


Southworth, Ms Helen
Woolas, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Worthington, Tony


Steen, Anthony
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Connarty, Michael
McNamara, Kevin



Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy



Dalyell, Tam
Tellers for the Noes:


Galloway, George
Mr. John McDonnell and


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. Tony Benn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on 10th February, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Flood Defences (South-west)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: It is suitable that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the Chamber, because he has responsibility for fish. As we are talking about water, storms and rain, one would expect to see a bit of fish, so the Minister's presence is appropriate. However, I am not quite sure why he will respond to the debate, unless he also has responsibility for flood defences.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley) indicated assent.: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley) indicated assent.

Mr. Steen: It is nice to know that the hon. Gentleman has that responsibility. I am glad to see him at such a reasonable hour.
During the days of the previous Labour Government, the south-west was hit by a series of droughts and water shortages. As a result, the Avon dam, on Dartmoor, in my constituency, almost dried up. Standpipes became commonplace on street corners, car washes were forbidden and the then Minister for water, Denis Howell, was deployed from Whitehall to the west country like an old 19th century rainmaker in the American west to pray for rain. That was very successful.
Paradoxically, it seems that, under the current Labour Government, the long dry sunny days of the 1970s have been eclipsed by unpredictable weather patterns resulting in torrential downpours of such intensity that rivers have burst their banks, tributaries have become raging torrents and roads have become streams of water as the result of run-off from the steep fields of the west country. Where once we had regular amounts of rainfall over a month, some parts of the west country now receive the same amount over a few days. Not surprisingly, the water table has risen and floods have become commonplace. Instead of a Minister for water, we perhaps now need a Minister for sunshine. That would fit into new Labour's raison d'etre—clear blue skies and a few white clouds, which is just how they would like us to picture its brave new world.
Devon has not before seen the scale nor the scope of the flash floods that have occurred in the past few months. Over Christmas—on 18, 23 and 24 December—the west country suffered some of the worst floods that it has had for decades. Hundreds of houses were flooded and miles of roads were awash, with rivers reaching danger points and others flooding everything around them.
Tragically, the floods resulted in the death of my constituent, Mr. Winchester from the hamlet of Galmpton near Brixharn, who was drowned after a seven-foot wave swept into his home. Because he suffered from Parkinson's disease and was in a wheelchair, he was unable to swim and, sadly, he died in his home.
Residents in Churston village, who were also flooded, believe that the massive earthworks at Brokenbury quarry were responsible and there is evidence that the house-building programme of 90,000 new homes for Devon in the next 11 years could contribute to further flooding if they are built on flood plains. As the Minister

will know, much of the building in Devon is on flood plains, which in the past have not erupted. However, because of the high water tables, the area has become much easier to flood. Weather patterns suggest a climatic change, particularly as the south-west peninsula juts out into the Atlantic and faces the brunt of nature's onslaught.
At Harbertonford, the River Harburn not only burst its banks, but reached its highest level for 70 years, which caused widespread flooding with 50 homes affected. Harbertonford was flooded several times over Christmas and, in spite of 30 tonnes of sandbags supplied by South Hams district council, several feet of water swept into the public bar of the local pub and gumboots were provided.
The serious conditions in Harbertonford coincided with the arrival of the parliamentary spokesperson, as she calls herself, of the Liberal Democrats. She has made as much party political capital as she can over these natural disasters. I deeply regret that, and there is a level of arrogance for someone to call herself a parliamentary spokesperson when she has not even been elected by the electorate to that role. Unfortunately, she has her facts all wrong—and that is not a good start for a parliamentary spokesperson. She has misunderstood the district council's responsibilities, which is not surprising because it is a Conservative district council. It provided well in excess of its duties with the chief executive visiting the village twice just before Christmas to ensure that what could be done was being done by the labour force.
The parliamentary spokesperson would have done better to talk to the Liberal Democrat county councillors in Exeter who have responsibility for flood defence. They have failed again to provide minimum funding for the Environment Agency and the south-west regional flood defence committee. The message is clear: if the burghers of Harbertonford want to avoid further flooding, they should ensure that the parliamentary spokesperson is moved to higher ground.
The question now is what the response should be. There are those who believe that we should be ultra-cautious and that public money should not be gambled on flood defences since the weather is unpredictable and it may turn out to be a waste of time and effort. The dry, sunny weather with white clouds may come back. At the other extreme are those who shout for more money to be spent, no matter what the cost or the risk of future flooding. Both views gamble with lives and public finances, and those gambles are wrong and unnecessary.
A balanced approach to flood defence is needed. A review is under way on the structure of flood defence provisions in England and Wales, and I hope that the Minister will talk about that and tell us when the review will be complete. Flood defences in the south-west have been weakened by a number of financial setbacks in recent years. The south-west regional flood defence committee is underfunded, and I pay particular tribute to the work of its chairman, Deborah Clark, who faces a difficult task and has done very well.
The problem is that the county council and unitary authorities in the south-west have responsibility for flood defence, but are failing to discharge that responsibility effectively. The regional flood defence committee would have done much more if the county and unitary authorities had used a £6 million match fund waiting in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the communities


suffering from the failure to implement that urgently needed flood defence scheme is Ottery St. Mary in my constituency. The town has been flooded out four times in three years to such an extent that many of the shopkeepers cannot get insurance for their premises.

Mr. Steen: I hope that the Minister will deal with Ottery St. Mary because, beyond the three areas that I have mentioned, the flood defence committee is particularly concerned about the capital sum that it will need to raise to deal with Ottery St. Mary. We certainly do not want my hon. Friend to be flooded or washed away.
There seems to be a failure by certain county and unitary authorities to discharge their responsibilities.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I gave notice to the hon. Gentleman that I wanted to intervene. Will he join me in paying tribute to the emergency services who waded through the flood waters in Galmpton and assisted in that operation? That needs to be put on the record.
The unitary authority of Torbay pays into the Environment Agency, contrary to comments that have been made in the press, but the difficulty is that there is not a statutory responsibility to match fund the agency's expenditure, as there is with social services and education. The money has to come from the council this year, when it does not have it, and it must claim it back later. The Government need to consider that matter.

Mr. Steen: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interventions because he always sticks up for his own party, even when it has got it wrong. In this case, I pay tribute to the services that came to Galmpton and dealt with an unpleasant, difficult situation.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, even though I do not agree with it. I am sure that the Minister will pick up his point that, although Torbay's unitary authority could spend more money to trigger the MAFF money, it does not have the money and it is not allowed to borrow it, even though it would get it back the following year. I know that the Minister will want to deal with that, and I am glad that it was raised by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). His constituency has two thirds of the bay, and my constituency has the other third.

Mr. Sanders: We have three quarters.

Mr. Steen: I do not think that we have measured it properly.
The regional flood defence committee would have done much more if the county and unitary authorities had utilised the £6 million match fund waiting in MAFF. That would have been triggered year after year if the county and unitary authorities had put in what was needed. Although the authorities may say that social services, education or highways are more important, they could have done something about flooding but they did not. They chose not to. I understand that, since 1995, the south-west regional flood defence committee has been allowed to increase its levy on the local authorities by only 5 per cent. In effect, it has withheld money given by the Government for flood defence.
Neighbouring Wessex regional flood defence committee has, by comparison, increased its levy not by 5 per cent., but by between 32 and 50 per cent. over the same period.

In real terms, the levy for the south-west by the county and unitary authorities is now worth only 89 per cent. of the 1995 value. One can understand why. There have not been many floods before, and the county and unitary authorities thought that it would not matter. They have, in effect, been caught with their trousers down. I am sure the Minister will amplify the point.
The south-west has been facing a funding crisis in flood defence. That must not and need not continue. The problem is not the money. The Minister announced in April last year that funding for flood defence for the next year would total £230 million. The blame lies with the south-west county councils and the unitary authorities—both Plymouth and Torbay must take some of the blame—which failed to put up the money needed. They are putting at risk more property and more lives.
As the south-west regional flood defence committee struggles under the strain of limited resources and greater demand, I urge the Minister to remind the county and unitary authorities in the south-west that they have a duty to provide adequate flood defence now.
Will the Minister also examine the priority score scheme? That is not something to do with cricket. It has to do with flood defence and was introduced by his Ministry. Under the scheme, regional flood defence committees can apply for grants in aid on capital expenditure.
Not surprisingly, the scheme discriminates against the south-west. The criteria on which the grants are based favour urban flood defence, on the grounds that it is more cost compliant, and probably also because there are more Labour voters in urban areas. In evidence before the Select Committee on Agriculture, the National Farmers Union stated that it was
extremely difficult for a rural scheme to qualify for grant funding".
That view was endorsed by the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association.
The Agriculture Committee recommended in its report that the Ministry introduce priority score criteria to reflect the social and economic disparities within regions, to redress the inequalities in grants in aid. What progress have the Minister and his Department made towards implementing that recommendation? Considering that Devon and Cornwall both suffer from structural economic, geographic and social problems, as highlighted by the granting of objective 1 and objective 2 aid to the region by the European Union, I suggest that that should be reflected in the priority score.
Unless the score criteria are changed, the shortfall in flood protection which has emerged as a result of county and unitary authority intransigence in the south-west will become worse. As matters stand, the Government could understandably be accused of favouring the cities and neglecting the countryside.
The Environment Agency and the south-west regional flood defence committee perform an excellent job in circumstances that are undoubtedly difficult. They deserve our thanks. However, the south-west is not receiving its fair share for flood defence.
The immediate fault may lie with the county and unitary authorities. They would get back money spent now on flood defence through next year's standard spending assessment. Their approach is short-termist, intolerable and shows a wanton disregard for the needs of


the region as a whole. They would prefer to protect their own coffers to providing adequate flood defence in the south-west.
The county and unitary authorities well understand that the public—and some Members of Parliament—are unaware where responsibility for flood defence lies. That has led to confusion in the South Hams case and ill-judged campaigns orchestrated by Liberal Democrats in the district council chambers, where responsibility for flood defence does not lie. The four Liberal Democrats out of 40 council members in South Hams mounted a debate that was wholly based on false facts which they had been fed.
The Minister should stress to county and unitary authorities the need for flood defence. He should publish his review of flood defence so that the relevant organisations, the public—and the Liberal Democrats—know where responsibility lies. The priority score should reflect the structural deficiencies of Devon and Cornwall so that capital long-term works can be undertaken in the south-west to alleviate the problem of the number of flashpoints in the region—I am told that it runs into hundreds. That would shift the focus of flood defence from large to small-scale projects. Given the frequency of flash floods in the south-west, that is vital for unprotected villages and hamlets the length and breadth of the west country.
I have crammed a lot of information into the short space of 16 minutes. I hope that the Minister, whom I hold in high regard with reference to fish, can keep my attention, and hold us in high regard with reference to flood defence.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on raising an important and topical issue in a well-informed manner. He is right about the division of responsibility for flooding and expenditure.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made about Ottery St. Mary, and I know about its problems. I have read reports about it, and I know that the regional flood defence committee is considering ways in which to tackle the problems. After the debate, I shall find out what progress has been made.
The hon. Member for Totnes is right about weather patterns. In recent years, they have shown shorter, more violent downpours. We do not know whether that trend will continue, but the amount of rainfall has been extreme, and we witnessed its results in the south-west over the Christmas period. I express my sympathy for his constituent's loss of life.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the priority score. However, I believe that it is the right method. As he will appreciate, there are many demands for flood defence projects, and it is right that money should relate to priority. The priority score reflects that in the number of properties, the number of lives at risk, the infrastructure, and the cost-benefit analysis. Urban areas do better because they contain more houses, have greater needs and are at greater risk. That is the nature of the priority score. However, the Government have, for the first time, included environmental issues in the priority

score. That helps rural areas. In North Norfolk, some rural areas already receive grant aid for flood defence. They would not have received it without the environmental criteria in the priority score.
I take the hon. Gentleman's points about social disparities. We will review the points system and the priority system. That is right and proper. I shall take his comments into account, and we shall consider them in the review.
Between 17 and 28 December, the south-west of England experienced the most extensive and prolonged flooding for 20 years. It resulted from unusually high rainfall—more than double the average—which fell on catchments that were already saturated by preceding rainfall. Conditions in low-lying areas were aggravated by high tides, especially on 24 and 25 December. Across the south-west peninsula, including the Somerset levels and moors, approximately 300 properties were affected to varying extents, and considerable, persistent flooding of farm land also occurred.
I pay tribute to everyone who was involved in tackling the flooding over the Christmas and new year holidays. They include the Environment Agency, local authorities, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the emergency services. Those people did a sterling job of protecting others, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I wrote to the new chairman of the Environment Agency to ask him to pass on our appreciation to the staff who worked during that period to tackle the emergency.
No Government can prevent floods, even a Government with such an impressive records as ours. We have our limitations. [Interruption.] I shall not go into that. However, we can limit the risks and improve warnings.
The Ministry provides grant aid for capital flood defence and coast protection schemes which are technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable and which achieve the appropriate priority score. We recognise the importance of sustaining flood defences and coast protection and the outcome of the 1998 comprehensive spending review was an additional £23 million for Ministry funding over this and the next two years, bringing the total available in those three years to £230 million. That is a considerable sum, although it is certainly not enough to meet all the demand.
We recognise that we need to do more, and I was pleased to announce that the allocations for this year involved a reduced priority score threshold for Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funding, which means that 30 extra schemes have been included. We are dealing with some of the problems and the south-west regional flood defence committee's capital programme has been given grant aid of £1.3 million. The Ministry provides agency regions and districts with varying grants for flood and coastal defence with the intention of providing higher grant support where needs are high and local resources low. Schemes in the south-west may be in that category. The general principle is that the grant rate may be increased if the capital programme increases, and vice versa.
That brings me to the point about the south-west that the hon. Member for Totnes made. The area's capital programme has been reduced because of the spending problems of the flood defence committee, which means that the grant available has been reduced by 10 per cent.


for 2000–01 to 25 per cent. with a supplement of 20 per cent. payable for tidal and sea defence works. I have set out the position on MAFF support for flood and coastal defence. Put simply, the more money regional flood defence committees raise and the more programmes they suggest, the more money they attract from MAFF in relation to capital grants.
There has been a problem with levies in the south-west. In the current year, the English local authorities will pay £206 million in levies to the agency. Those levies and local authorities' other expenditure on flood and coastal defences are recognised in their standard spending assessments and reflected in the distribution of revenue support grant. In recent years, increases in flood defence SSAs have been above the rate of inflation: 6 per cent. in 1997; 5.1 per cent. in 1998; 6.3 per cent. in 1999–2000—which is way above inflation—and 3.2 per cent. for 2000–01.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the problem of flood defence in the south-west. The difficulty is that the south-west councils have not always provided adequate funding. In particular, they have not always passed on the increases that the Government have made in SSAs. The Environment Agency reports that levies in the south-west region in 2001 will be only 5 per cent. higher than those paid in 1994–95. That compares to a 28 per cent. increase in the SSA over that period, so he is right to point out that shortfall. I was so concerned about the situation in the south-west two years ago that I wrote to all the chief executives of the unitary authorities that make up the south-west regional flood defence committee to express my anxiety about the inadequate funding being passed on to that committee. I have not written to any other council in this country.
I am pleased that in the past couple of years the local authorities have agreed levy increases in line with the increase in SSA. That is welcome, but the problem is the shortfall that has accumulated as a result of the years of underfunding. The authorities are still paying the price for that. Although they have been passing on the full SSA, which is a great improvement, they need to allow for that shortfall if they are to make up the years of underfunding. The Environment Agency calculates that the increase in the south-west for this year should have been 6.9 per cent., not the 3.2 per cent. that was levied.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the problems of underfunding, which, in all fairness, were chronic before the unitary authorities were established. Devon and Cornwall county councils were mainly responsible for the underfunding at that time.

Mr. Steen: I thank the Minister for all that he is saying. It is music to my ears. I hope that it is also music to the local authorities' ears and that they do something about it. Am I right in thinking that district councils have very little role in flood defences, other than sandbags and a few other things?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right. The main responsibility for the levies and deciding the levies lies with the county and unitary authorities, which send representatives who sit on the regional flood defence committee. It is those representatives who are responsible for deciding the levy that the committee raises each year.

Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister confirm that in the lifetime of the unitary authority it has paid over the money it should have paid over, and that the problem lies with the county councils, not the unitary authorities, in the last two years?

Mr. Morley: It is all the councils involved in the area of the south-west regional flood defence committee. I confirm that since there has been a division with the new unitaries they have paid over the full SSA allowance. The problem is that there is chronic underfunding, and there is a black hole in the budget of the regional flood defence committee. Unfortunately, to deal with some of the problems we have been hearing about, it needs to raise some extra money to make up for the years of the underfunding.
As the hon. Member for Totnes rightly says, following on from the 1998 Agriculture Committee report on flood and coastal defences—a very good report—the Government are reviewing those funding mechanisms. The consultation exercise has been completed, and the options arising are being considered with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I do not have a date for an announcement. I will make inquiries, and if there is an indication of when it will report I shall write and let him know.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will any regard be given to properties—whether residential or business—that find it difficult to insure because of constant flooding?

Mr. Morley: At present there is no facility for that, because generally speaking floods are an insurable risk. Where there is chronic flooding there could well be insurance problems, but chronic flooding needs to be addressed by the regional flood defence committee. We will look at that sympathetically, in the light of the priority scoring system and the other details that have to be applied.
The matter is being considered very carefully. Another issue that is being considered is whether levies raised by flood defence committees should remain ring-fenced for use only in that committee's area, or whether, as the Select Committee suggested, they should be more flexible and used in the context of national rather than local priorities. I hope that it will be possible to announce preliminary conclusions on that funding review as soon as possible.

Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: I am afraid that I have only one minute left.
I join in the welcome that has been given for the work of the regional flood defence committee. Deborah Clark is doing an excellent job. She is working very hard. I have met her, and members of the committee, on a number of occasions to express my support for the work that they are doing, and to try to work with them to deal with some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In some areas there may well be alternative sources of funding, such


as EU funds, or discussions about whether partnerships with others or imaginative approaches to projects with multiple functions can yield better value for money. I understand that Deborah Clark has convened a meeting tomorrow, 9 February, to look at ways of raising alternative funds, and I look forward to hearing the outcome.
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his knowledge of this issue. I can confirm some of his fears. There are issues to address, and we are prepared to

address them, both in relation to reviews of the funding mechanisms and in relation to the priority scoring system and how that applies. I am pleased that more money has been passed on in the last two years in relation to the flood defence committee. That means—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.